Hon. Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
W.D.Pa.  
Average Rating:1.3 - 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
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. Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 21539
Rating:1.3
Comments:
Judge Cohill's opinion in Zahner v. Mackereth, 11-CV-306, is results-driven and poorly reasoned. It also demonstrates hostility to lower-net-worth families who are trying to qualify for government benefits by closing off options that are available to higher-net-worth families. Judge Cohill bent over backwards to render a decision in favor of the Department of Public Welfare, ignoring the plain meaning of the statute at issue. See related comments at: http://topomyhead.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/third-circuit-perfidy/

Other

Comment #: 7612
Rating:1.0
Comments:
These judges believe that their oath of office means nothing and that they are above the law. They consistently deny most litigants due process of law and think they are given omnipotent powers. They refuse to hear submissions from litigants about their duty to protect the people's rights from those who infringe upon them and they promote the cruel and unusual punishment of tasers and police training. They refuse to inform themselves of the fact that the people hold all power and only lend some delegated powers to them, thereby transcending their delegated powers. A Council of Censors of the Sovereign People is required for the improvement of this tyranny.