Hon. Mark S. Rammell See Rating Details
Magistrate Judge
County Court
Madison County
Seventh Judicial District		 See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 3 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
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:

  

What others have said about Hon. Mark S. Rammell


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: ID228
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He granted a temporary guardianship when he stated after granting, that he had conflict of interest with the petitioners. He did not follow due diligence to investigate where/why the petitioners were seeking the guardianship. The parent was not properly served. He voluntarily resided from the case after the respondent parent filed declaration on conflict of interest “he described during the hearing that he was family friend” of the petitioner. But the order granted by him was not voided and the Idaho court’s new judge took on the case and did not address their mistake. The GAL he appointed were Facebook and church ward friend of the petitioners. The judge, GAL, the petitioners were all the members of the LDS.

View Detail  Send e-mail to this poster 6/10/2022 11:45:52 PM

Litigant

Comment #: ID227
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He granted a temporary guardianship when he stated after granting, that he had conflict of interest with the petitioners. He did not follow due diligence to investigate where/why the petitioners were seeking the guardianship. The parent was not properly served. He voluntarily resided from the case after the respondent parent filed declaration on conflict of interest “he described during the hearing that he was family friend” of the petitioner. But the order granted by him was not voided and the Idaho court’s new judge took on the case and did not address their mistake. The GAL he appointed were Facebook and church ward friend of the petitioners. The judge, GAL, the petitioners were all the members of the LDS.

View Detail  Send e-mail to this poster 6/10/2022 11:45:46 PM

Litigant

Comment #: ID226
Rating:1.0
Comments:
He granted a temporary guardianship when he stated after granting, that he had conflict of interest with the petitioners. He did not follow due diligence to investigate where/why the petitioners were seeking the guardianship. The parent was not properly served. He voluntarily resided from the case after the respondent parent filed declaration on conflict of interest “he described during the hearing that he was family friend” of the petitioner. But the order granted by him was not voided and the Idaho court’s new judge took on the case and did not address their mistake. The GAL he appointed were Facebook and church ward friend of the petitioners. The judge, GAL, the petitioners were all the members of the LDS.

View Detail  Send e-mail to this poster 6/10/2022 11:45:18 PM