Hon. Peter Flynn See Rating Details
Subcircuit Judge
Circuit Court
Cook County
Cook Judicial Circuit
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.8 - 2 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. Peter Flynn


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: IL754
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Such a tacit agreement among the parties does not compel the court to conclude that there is no issue of
material fact, and it does not obligate the trial court to render summary judgment in either party's favor. See Andrews v. Cramer, 256 Ill. App. 3d (766, 769 0.993).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: IL720
Rating:6.1
Comments:
He tried to do the work of the other side when he decided that he wanted them to get to a certain outcome, but found that their arguments failed to get them there.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: IL644
Rating:1.5
Comments:
Can't seem to make a decision about anything. Routinely denies both sides' cross-motions for summary judgment even when both sides agree that there are no genuine issues of material fact. A straightforward coverage DJ can languish with him for years while he does his very best to avoid making a decision.