"The Robing Room: OR 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. Cindee S. Matyas

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: OR112
Rating:3.3

Comments:
Would not discipline the defendants for their numerous contemptuous behaviors during court. Brushed off the fact that defendants violated their promises under oath after the hearings numerous times. Was easily intimidated by "big city" defense attorney. Her inability to put any bite in her judgement has just re-victimized the victim in this case. No clarity in her opinions. Seems to want to appease both sides of the matter, but is very vague in her judgement...lack of judicial assertiveness. Not willing to rule in person, but would rather just mail her opinion out. No control over her courtroom. Reversed the concerns of the other judge who initially granted the protection orders. A weak link in our court system. How many times must a person be victimized before justice can be served? Shameful....

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: OR99
Rating:2.7

Comments:
Unwilling or unable to drill down on COMPLEX civil matter. Opinion---even after request for consideration--written ia a way that does not clearly state what the judge thinks or resolve the issue cleanly. Matter that should have been handled conclusively on a procedural basis is now lodged at the Court of Appeals becasue of lack of vision and clarity.