"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Elizabeth Ufkes Olivera

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA37088
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The comments CA37026 I entered are for the wrong judge! The comments were NOT meant for this judge, Olivera. I do not know how to get a correction made. I apologize

Litigant

Comment #: CA37026
Rating:5.0

Comments:
This has to be the oddest court session I’ve ever had. This judge is newly appointed to the job, and it shows.. I’ll assume she hasn’t t handled many small claims cases.
Prior to my turn, I listened as she quoted court regulations, chapter and verse to other litigants. Unnecessarily so at times.
When my case started the first thing she said was that we each had to give ALL our testimony in a single statement. I’ve never experienced anything like this before. I had to mentally scramble to try and include everything I could think of to get it all in. Normally, the issues would be brought up as the trial progressed. We were the last case. I guess she was pressed for time to get ready for a date or something.
Once you finished your statement, that was it. No rebuttal, no opportunity to respond to comments. If you tried to you were told that you already had your chance to speak.
I “won” my case. And for some odd reasoning she only granted partial judgment. She tried to explain her rational for her ruling but she made absolutely NO sense. God forbid, I knew better to interrupt during her rambling statement. Because of covid the case was done via Zoom. When she was speaking I actually covered my camera lens so she couldn’t see the look of “puzzlement” I had on my face.
She, and the public, might be well served if she’d spend some time observing a small claims court overseen by a seasoned judge. Maybe she’ll learn something. Maybe not.