Hon. Keith D. Davis See Rating Details
Superior Court
San Bernardino County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   6.0 - 3 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      

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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Keith D. Davis


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA26438
Judge Davis is a pleasant, professional, courteous judge. He takes his job seriously, strives to make good decisions and expects civility in his courtroom. He is very good to his staff, and his wife works for the top court administrator.
He is a former deputy DA and civil defense attorney. He is conscientious but modest in his intellectual abilities and legal scholarship. He is very conservative, stubborn, opinionated and heavily favors the prosecution and civil defendant. He is the nicest judge you'll meet with ice in his veins instead of empathy. However, he gives some deference to respected lawyers on the other side. Good luck if you are a pro per on the wrong side...


Comment #: CA19264
I am the pro per with the one star rating given above. As a follow up, it should be noted that the Court of Appeal did reverse Judge Davis exactly as I knew it would. Civil Code 1559 is short and sweet... a person may sue to enforce a contract made for his benefit. It's been the law since California has been a state. So, yeah, thank you Judge Davis for wasting over a year by not listening. At least the Court of Appeal still does. Also, just FYI, as I also said, I did recuse Judge Davis after the COA decision.


Comment #: CA11997
I had read the other two comments here prior to my first appearance before Judge Davis today and they are each at the opposite side of the spectrum so I really did not know how to reconcile it but now I can make sense of it.

As the first glowing comment points out, Judge David does give well-reasoned tentative decisions which indicate he has read the moving papers and opposition. So that is actually more than can be said for many judges because many (not most) don't read much at all and 'wing it' from the bench. Unfortunately, a well-reasoned decision does not always mean the reasoning is based in law. I found that out today first hand. Overall, Judge Davis' decision on a demurrer was almost entirely in my favor, in that as the Plaintiff, only one cause of action in a dozen was actually sustained without leave to amend. But the crux of the judges decision as to the central legal issue of the entire case missed the mark so entirely I have to question just how much of the law this judge is capable of understanding.

I am a pro per litigant with two decades of legal experience. I have beat the Chief Trial Counsel of the SEC, having a federal judges decision overturned, in a published and much quoted case Sherman v. SEC. I have been before the California COA about a half dozen times and won every single case I have brought before it. I have published decisions in my name. Point being, don't make the same assumptions Judge Davis did today. No, it's not that I'm such a hot shot when it comes to armchair lawyering, but that judges do what Judge Davis did today. They see a pro per is up against a $500+ an hour lawyer and just assume that the pro per has no idea what he is doing.

Realizing that the judge was making a very obvious error, not only contrary to all case law before him, but the clear language of the statute, I tried to explain to him the issue very politely. He is very courteous himself, by the way. Yet he launched into a five minute soliloquy on how he's never seen a pro per prevail in his 30 years as a lawyer, prosecutor, judge, etc. and discussed at length the legal aid packet he would send to my home. It was so condescending that I don't think it would have been too difficult to prove bias on a 170.3, even with the bar for that being as high as it is.

Regardless, I'll now take his decision to the COA, have it reversed, be back in the trial court and recuse him on that basis in any event. It is sad judges don't have the open mind and lack of prejudice that they should.

So, in sum, if you are a pro per with a valid legal argument... go elsewhere. The very first words out of your mouth in his court should be, "Your honor I'd like to exercise a 170.6 peremptory challenge." If you are an attorney, be forewarned this judge will likely judge your credentials (or lack thereof), how eloquent you or your adversary are, maybe your shoes as well, before he researches the merits of your written arguments. Sure, he'll treat you politely, with respect and even humor, but don't expect that to translate into a decision based upon the law.

And, for all of you saying, "You nitwit, this judge can figure out who you are...." Okay. So what? See you when I'm back off of appeal Judge Davis.... for all of thirty seconds that it takes to assign a new judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10741
I just finished a highly contested, complex matter before him involving extensive law and motion practice. Judge Davis is always prepared and gives well-reasoned tentative rulings prior to every hearing. He does not appear to have any particular leaning in favor of plaintiffs or defendants and really zeroes in on the issues that matter. Even when rulings went against me, I was able to understand and respect the ruling even if I would have ruled differently in Judge Davis' shoes. I am not able to say that about many judges.

He controls his courtroom well; while polite, he will not tolerate underhanded tactics and misrepresentations from counsel. Judge Davis is also cordial and flexible, and hears counsel out before making decisions that affect the case. Judge Davis is an absolute credit to the bench who I sincerely hope to appear before again.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8065
I have no clue how this man got on the bench, but I have heard stories that it had nothing to do with ability or intellect and that appears to be true from my experience. This man actually made a comment that he "never met an innocent defendant" --
and held a young man to answer for a strike offense, criminal threat, for saying "If you make my mother ill over this, I will take you to court." The same case, he found that one person not liking the way my client trimmed his neighbors trees, meant my client should be held to answer for FELONY VANDALISM (the homeowner did not complain... the future power of attorney did.)
I also did the appeal of a case over which he presided in trial. He is dangerous, arrogant and doesn't belong on a judicial bench.
He is not short on spouting opinions about things he knows nothing about. I'm sorry to hear he is still on the bench... I haven't seen him in a while.