Hon. Susan Weaver See Rating Details
Circuit Judge
Supreme Court
Faulkner County
Twentieth Circuit
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. Susan Weaver


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: AR104
Rating:1.0
Comments:
[Redacted by Ed.] This judge doesn't believe in the Constitution or care to know how the American law system works. Her Kangaroo court is what should be expected by anyone who dares enter. She holds ex parte hearings with her favored attorney and makes decisions before any evidence is examined. Judge Susan Weaver practices the color of the law from the bench and has deemed herself fit to determine if a litigant is physically, mentally, or emotionally not capable of having custody of their children. This is all done without a professional diagnosis from licensed medical professionals. There is no impartiality in this courtroom and [Redacted by Ed.]
Judge Susan Weaver isn't for children's rights either as she campaigned and pretends to be an advocate for the children. She has gone so far as to take away parental rights from a good parent and give them to the abusive parent. The parent admitted to beating the children, being an alcoholic, and partaking in drug usage. The other party had evidence to back up this claim and it was ignored by Judge Susan Weaver. This judge went too far as to ridicule the good parent with the other attorney and said that the parent didn't deserve their children. Now, these children are with an abuser who brainwashes them against the other parent, won't let them see their other parent, and uses the court system for further abuse and control of the other parent. The children are being sold to the parent with the most money, which should be illegal and categorized under human trafficking. The best interest of the children is a joke and the children in this case have to live with the heartbreak of losing their primary caretaker, who was there for them 24/7, until deemed unfit to be a parent by Judge Susan Weaver. This court is unconstitutional and taking away children from a good parent to give sole custody to an abuser is ludicrous. Plus establishing that the other parent has supervised visitation without just cause further allows the abuser to control the other parent. Judge Susan Weaver is a dangerous court actor and should have never been placed in a position of power.

Litigant

Comment #: AR72
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Weaver rules differently on similar fact sets if a litigant is self represented. For example when attorney WZ White filed an answer late, his opponent was granted default judgment. When WZ White neglected to answer a counterclaim on my suit, Judge Weaver did not rule on the motion for default. She also gave Mr. White a continuance to serve summons after the trial date he insisted on, and he had not even prepared the summons yet. Tellingly, there was no jury impaneled for the trial, so it seems like Judge Weaver knew ahead of time that Mr. White was going to ask for a continuance on trial day.