Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
E.D.Mich.  
Average Rating:8.0 - 3 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
Add a comment only

Ratings

*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=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 18494
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Taylor has the perfect type of tempermant to be a judge. She is very even keeled and doesn't fly off the handle like some of her more emotional colleagues.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 5773
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Ruled warrantless wiretapping (TSP) unconstitutional (06-2095;06-2140) and issued an injunction on the NSA, saying that the President had undisputedly violated the Fourth Amendment and accordingly had violated the plantiff's First Amendment rights. The 6th Circuit stayed the decision, then reversed her decision with case 06-10204, saying that the plantiffs lacked standing. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal by the ACLU on February 19, 2008.