Hon. Cheryl M. Long See Rating Details
Senior Judge
Superior

See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 4 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. Cheryl M. Long


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: DC260
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Cheryl M. Long misread a decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by ignoring the difference between the past tense and the present tense. Long ruled that "had a right" means "has a right." I will never forget Long's face when she realized that her reading of the law would be challenged by attorneys. The opposing party quickly settled and even refutiated this judge's sua sponte ruling. Cheryl M. Long has yet to admit that she was wrong despite the clear language of the settlement. A level-headed mind should always step down from the bench after being proved wrong by both parties. But this woman feels protected, does not care about language, and has had 130 case plus on appeal, 75 percent of which have been reversed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. I couldn't have had such a lack of conscience, not ever.

Litigant

Comment #: DC206
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Cheryl M. Long recently escaped reversal in one of the least reasoned appellate decisions published by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The disclaimers and the disregard of precedent and reason in Noelle Anketel-Kramer's writing make for very bad law. Kramer's pronoucement was contorted to find against a nonattorney litigant, and thus the cheapest of shots from the bench become law by Kramer's ill-reasoned affirmance of Long's ill-reasoned reading of the law. As one educated at Bryn Mawr, McGill, and the Sorbonne in three languages and in the broad reality of cultures that have long refused to tolerate such ignorance on the part of judges, I am unafraid to stand up to incomptence on any bench. That incompentence must go, and not just in the Arab spring. It must go along with former colleagues on the Superior Court bench, given power without regard for reason and the factuality of a human life and without a careful reading of the statutes and regulations. These "judges" are the true lawless of our society.

Litigant

Comment #: DC167
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Cheryl M. Long retired with two months' notice, six years into a fifteen-year term. What happened?

Litigant

Comment #: DC155
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has reversed about three-fourths of Long's rulings in its published decisions for her failure to apply basic standards of law. Long is quoted as saying about her time on the bench, “Other than having a broader opportunity to do some public service, I really thought the most important thing was being able to make my own decisions and do what I think is right, without having to persuade other people to agree with it[....] At a certain point in time, you want to do what you think is the best thing and have that intellectual independence.” Compare her decisions with those of someone like Judge Kravitz, for example. Long's rulings lack the careful handling of evidence, the scholarship, the objective analysis, the self-restraint that is necessary for our legal system to function with the trust of its citizens. "Sua sponte" should not mean "solipsism," but Long does as she pleases, with many reversals by careful jurists, and drags our standards of intellectual rigor into a gutter of her own making. She is not worthy of the bench.