Comment #: 33274
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The worst. We answered interrogatories by referring to documents under Rule 33 (d) which was especially appropriate since the client was not familiar with the documents, but she made us re-do them. We spent hours getting everything we could out of the documents to supplement the interrogatories. Meanwhile my adversary took two depositions that violated a court order limiting discovery. She made us answer the interrogatories again and said my adversary's questions were proper. She knew nothing about the case. Our third set of interrogatory answers looked like the Manhattan yellow pages. She still wanted to throw the book at us but I made a spirited argument that caused her to wait four days before issuing minor sanctions. When the parties filed summary judgment motions, my adversary made a motion to strike our papers and cited ten instances where they said we had violated one of her orders. Our opposition stated that they literally lied to her ten times, and we had not violated her order. She granted their motion, which effectively decided the case, but in a subsequent order awarding my adversary sanctions, she stated she never read our papers. If she is reappointed it will be a disaster. r

Comment #: 32822
Rating:3.2
Comments:
She is a disaster. She took issue with our first interrogatory responses. Fair enough. Our second responses were the most thorough I've seen, but she made us do a third one, which read like the Manhattan yellow pages. She then wrote a scathing opinion criticizing us, including for deposition defense, when 95% of the questions were beyond the scope of discovery ordered by the judge. She then ruled we could only use in motion practice or trial what we submitted in discovery. Our motion papers satisfied this, but she granted the other side's motion in a ruling that struck our factual assertion and deemed theirs uncontested. Unless the judge reverses her, we will lose this case based on a series of fictions asserted by the other side, who lied to the ccurt 16 times in three motions, without consequence. The banana republic.

Comment #: 32635
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I compared the Loyal White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan using the British honorary term of "Sir" for a Knight and racist/sexist beliefs on Quantico Marine Corps Base when I asked an African-American Female NOT to call me Sir on Election Day. Judge Carroll-Buchanan found me guilty of Abusive Language.

Comment #: 18229
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Theresa Buchanan has no respect for the protections incorporated in the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Comment #: 6740
Rating:6.3
Comments:
A judge to be avoided in criminal cases if possible.

Comment #: 2488
Rating:9.4
Comments:
Excellent judge. Get's straight to the matter at hand, quickly and fairly decides how to proceed, and is nice and professional the whole time.