How We Grade Judges

The questions we ask

1. 1. Did the judge know and apply the controlling law?

   We check whether an order identifies the governing statute, rule, or binding decision and applies it to the issue before the court. We compare how the same judge handles similar legal questions in other civil cases.

2. 2. Did the judge treat the evidence and factual disputes fairly?

   We read the order against the relevant public record. Did it accurately describe material evidence from both sides? At summary judgment, did it use the correct standard for deciding whether a genuine factual dispute should proceed? We also examine what the order leaves out.

3. 3. Did both sides have a fair chance to make their case?

   We look at opportunities to obtain relevant evidence, present arguments, and respond. When a judge limits or ends discovery, we examine the reason given, what evidence remained to be obtained, and whether comparable requests received comparable treatment.

4. 4. Does the record show signs of bias, disparagement, or bullying?

   We look for repeated one-sided treatment, unexplained differences between comparable rulings, disparaging remarks about litigants, and conduct that appears intimidating or bullying. We use the judge’s words and actions in orders or hearing records, with their context, rather than guessing at private motives.

5. 5. Did the judge explain the decision?

   We ask whether the ruling addresses the central arguments and gives reasons that parties and readers can test. We note later corrections and appellate decisions for what they actually decided.

The standards in their own words

From orders to an overall grade

We begin with consequential orders from civil cases, including decisions about discovery, evidence, summary judgment, trial, and recusal where relevant. We read the related motions, hearing transcripts, later orders, and appellate decisions when available. We then look beyond the first examples for a pattern and for decisions that point in a different direction. We identify the records supporting a pattern and consider its seriousness and effect on the parties’ opportunity to be heard.

Judges have discretion over many civil rulings, including discovery, evidence, sanctions, and case management. Minnesota appellate courts describe an abuse of discretion as a decision that misapplies the law, rests on unsupported findings, or runs against logic and the record. We examine these rulings against the law and record. Repeated serious problems weigh heavily.

Civil cases form the core of each judge’s grade. We also consider appellate findings from other case types when they concern duties shared across the judge’s work, including applying controlling law and exercising discretion within legal limits. Findings of abuse of discretion or action beyond judicial authority receive substantial weight, especially when similar concerns appear in the civil record or in separate cases. Each judge’s page explains what the appellate court held, whether the error affected the outcome, and how the finding affected the grade.

An order beyond a court’s authority can cause harm that a later appeal cannot undo. Compelling disclosure of legally protected communications is one example: once revealed, their privacy is lost. The Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes extraordinary review when a discovery order demands information clearly outside discovery and there is no adequate remedy at law. We consider both the legal boundary crossed and the harm the order threatened.

The letter grade is an editorial judgment about the reviewed body of work. The descriptions below explain each grade; each judge’s page links to the cases and reporting behind its assessment.

• A Consistently strong record of fair, well-supported decisions.
• B Generally sound record with limited material concerns.
• C Mixed record with meaningful strengths and concerns.
• D Repeated material concerns about fairness or legal reasoning.
• F Pervasive serious concerns about fairness, impartiality, or application of law, shown across multiple reviewed cases or through a sustained pattern at multiple stages of one case. Relevant appellate findings may reinforce that assessment.
• I Incomplete — The reviewed record is too limited to assign an A–F grade.

How readers can check our work

Each judge’s page will identify the civil cases considered and any appellate decisions from other case types that affected the grade, link to key public records and related articles, and explain the grade with representative examples. When Justice-Denied’s editors were parties in a reviewed case, that interest is disclosed on the judge’s page.

The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct guides our questions about fairness, competence, the right to be heard, bias, and respectful treatment. The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct also offers guidance on impartiality, bias, competence, the right to be heard, and courtroom demeanor. Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56 guides our review of summary judgment. Our editorial standards explain our use of sources, AI assistance, and corrections.