Hon. Mark Wood Snauffer See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Fresno County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.2 - 4 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments




What others have said about Hon. Mark Wood Snauffer


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4837
Rating:2.8
Comments:
This judge does not appear to do his own work. He shares a research attorney with several other judges, all of whom simply rubber-stamp the research attorney write-ups.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4181
Rating:1.8
Comments:
This guy is not wise. He is not even bright. He must have been a political appointment, as it appears that he cannot grasp the simplest aspects of civil law. He used the briefs of the defense counsel in toto in arriving at his decisions - even though they were 180 degrees off from what the law says. I have 15 years of experience in this field and he got even the simplest issues wrong -- even going to great lengths to show that a 16-year-old had the capacity to contract! What? Where?

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA3384
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I feel this Judge is merely overworked & needs a vacation. He does law & motion which is pages & pages in the decisions. He should probably be mover up to appellate court.

I had a recent case before him & he didn't know the party he consolidated my client with had dismissed from the action. He said he'd spent time on their different issue. So much for my client? We were denied relief.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA1128
Rating:8.8
Comments:
Has always given my clients, some of them not so adorable, a full and fair forum. Can't ask for more.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA247
Rating:7.4
Comments:
We were assigned Snauffer for a complex $60 million case. I found him to very bright and well-prepared. He seemed to grasp the issues easily and understood everyone's position. He generally has a good demeanor, but shows some visible irritation if counsel goes on and on. The only real issue was that almost all motions (even easy discovery motions) were taken under submission and there were long delays in getting rulings. These delays often caused the case to drag on far longer then it should have.