Hon. Carol Murphy See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Thurston 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


Please type what you see below:

  

What others have said about Hon. Carol Murphy


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: WA1621
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Appeared before her on a petition for judicial review from administrative agency decision (sometimes called "ALR"). I think she came prepared, asked the right questions, gave each counsel ample time to argue, and understood the standard of review. We lost, but I think we got a fair shake.

Other

Comment #: WA1554
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Does not grant the TRO for the wolves. She does not want to upset WDFW’s attempt at social harmony?? Are you kidding? WDFW and the ranchers want the wolves wiped out and she just made it that much easier for them. Uncaring, unfeeling and unfit.

Other

Comment #: WA1498
Rating:1.0
Comments:
TERRIBLE in how she handled the Racoon case.
shows how disconnected she is to human and animal empathy.
should not be on the bench