Hon. Kenneth B. Povodator See Rating Details
Superior Court Judge
District Court
Fairfield County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.0 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   6.0 - 1 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. Kenneth B. Povodator


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CT719
Rating:5.0
Comments:
Can be long winded in opinions. Thoughtful but can be bullying and superior.

Litigant

Comment #: CT214
Rating:6.0
Comments:
Rendered a lengthy opinion on a defamation complaint, following which he claimed a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The effect was an irrelevant diatribe that served only to pollute the waters for further action by the plaintiff. Legal authorities questioned his application of subject matter jurisdiction given the crux of the case, calling it a cop-out.