"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Gina Dashman	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Contra Costa County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: - 0 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 2.0 - 3 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Gina Dashman

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA54424
Rating:1.0

Comments:
- heard a case of her superior’s husband and made outrageous ruling in their favor shortly before getting promoted creating appearance of corruption
- presided on case where records of the case were changed & lost after they were filed and would not admit & take into account relevant evidence
- this person has demonstrated that she does not have the ethical compass required to be a judge

Litigant

Comment #: CA52312
Rating:3.0

Comments:
She was good in the first proceeding I had for my small claims action. When the defendant filed a motion to vacate, the defendant offered inconsistent testimony & bold faced lies that Dashman did not catch. She granted her motion and, as a result, my monetary reward went down by $2,000.

Not a good judge.

Litigant

Comment #: CA52241
Rating:2.0

Comments:
She tried to be fair but ended up being transparently biased towards a party in a civil breach of contract action. Would not hear all the evidence and wrote a simple, conclusory opinion without any reasoning or analysis and untethered from the evidence.