Hon. Janet Hilde See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Plumas County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 2 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. Janet Hilde


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA4189
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is truly unfair. She is all pro-prosecution. She speaks of constitutional rights, but she does the opposite.

Litigant

Comment #: CA2191
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The Honorable Janet Hilde, on November 16, 2011 was proven to be as Dishonest as I had believed her to be. The Appellate Division (Judge F. Donald Sokal) reversed her "Guilty" of Driving an Implement of Husbandary without a Driver's License, Insurance and Registration...The Vehicle Code "Exempts" those vehicles yet Judge Hilde was mislead by the Pretty CHP Officer with all the Tassles and Medals! Judge Hilde, you should spend more time looking into the Vehicle Code instead of checking out the Boys in Blue! Appellate Case APP00027 Filed November 15, 2011 from Traffic Citation #TR11-C0012 My Tractor was Towed & Impounded for 17 Days of which I have yet to be compensated for this loss which Plumas County Court Officials COULD CARE LESS! The WORST of the Worst!