NSBA...Peter C. Bataillon W. Russell Bowie III Timothy P. Burns J. Michael Coffey J. Russell Derr Duane C. Dougherty James T. Gleason *Thomas A. Otepka Kimberly M. Pankonin Marlon

NSBA Contact: Liz Neeley, Executive Director 402-475-7091

Tim Engler, NSBA President 402-475-5100

News Release – For Immediate Release 402-475-7091

July 24, 2018

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Lawyers Give High Marks to State’s Judges LINCOLN – The Nebraska State Bar Association (NSBA) today released results of its 2018

Judicial Performance Evaluation. Lawyers responding to the poll recommend that 100% of the

138 judges evaluated be retained on the bench. Tim Engler, president of the NSBA, states that he

concurs with his predecessors, “While not an absolute measure, the poll gives practicing attorneys

the opportunity to evaluate judges on a variety of important criteria.”

Fifty-four percent of the judges evaluated were given a 90% or higher retention approval. Forty-

six judges received an 80-89% retention approval, and nine judges were approved 70-79%.

“These numbers are remarkable,” said Engler. “In these times of political division, the poll

confirms that our judges in Nebraska do not operate as a political branch of government, but just

do what judges are supposed to do: follow the law.”

The NSBA first used the Judicial Evaluation Poll in 1984. It is conducted biennially. “By far,

Nebraska lawyers believe that the vast majority of our Nebraska judges are competently and

diligently serving the citizens of Nebraska,” said Engler.

An electronic survey was sent to 5,569 active NSBA members residing in Nebraska, Council

Bluffs and Sioux City, Iowa and Yankton, South Dakota. 917 members completed the

evaluation. Soval Solutions, LLC, an independent research firm in Lincoln, compiled the results.

The results may be viewed at http://www.nebar.com.

http://www.nebar.com/

Background Information 2018 Judicial Performance Evaluation

Conducted by: The Nebraska State Bar Association 635 S. 14th St. #200 Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 475-7091 Fax (402) 475-7098 Web page: www.nebar.com For Interview: Timothy R. Engler, President, (402) 475-5110

For Information: Sam Clinch, Associate Executive Director, (402) 742-8125 E-mail: [email protected] Purpose: The 2018 Judicial Performance Evaluation is the 18th biennial evaluation of Nebraska judges by Nebraska lawyers. The evaluation’s purpose is two-fold: to provide each judge with a continuing assessment of his or her strengths and weaknesses, thereby improving the overall quality of the judiciary; and to help the public better understand Nebraska’s merit system for the selection and retention of judges by providing information useful in making an informed decision about judges standing for retention. Procedures: The evaluation was disseminated in April to active Nebraska State Bar Association members residing in Nebraska, Council Bluffs and Sioux City, Iowa and Yankton South Dakota. Judicial members are ineligible to participate and did not receive the poll. Unless requested, judges with less than one year’s tenure on the bench were not evaluated. A total of 5,569 evaluations were disseminated. The response deadline was May 18, 2018. Instructions: Attorneys were instructed to evaluate only judges with whom they had recent, first-hand professional experience; or in the case of appeals court judges, with whose written opinions they were familiar. Attorneys were allowed to evaluate up to 30 District Court and 30 County Court judges, and any or all Supreme Court, Workers’ Compensation Court, Juvenile Court and Federal Court judges. Attorneys were asked to review characteristics carefully, and then assign each a numerical rating using a scale of “5” (excellent) to “1” (very poor). If they could not rate a judge on a particular characteristic, they were asked to mark “no opinion”. Attorneys were also asked to indicate whether, in their opinion, the judge should be retained in office and whether their principal practice was in the judge’s judicial district. The evaluation is voluntary. Bar members have the opportunity to indicate their unwillingness to participate, or to decline to participate based on ineligibility (attorneys without a trial practice or who were recently admitted to the practice of law). All responses were confidential. No name, town or other identifying information was solicited or tabulated. Response: The 2018 response rate is figured on the basis of 5,569 evaluations. The Bar received 917 completed evaluations.

2018 Judicial Performance Evaluation Results Background Information Page 2 Results: The attached results represent an average score on each characteristic for each judge, using the 5-point scale noted on the top of each page. No attempt has been made to determine an overall rating for each judge, nor has any attempt been made to compare one judge’s scores with those of any other judge. That is not the purpose of this evaluation and such a comparison would not be statistically valid. No attempt has been made to verify the answers expressed by lawyers responding to the poll. Soval Solutions, LLC, an independent research firm in Lincoln, compiled the results. The responses represent a collection of individual opinions, which have been gathered and tabulated solely for their informational value. The Judicial Performance Evaluation does not present scientifically accurate conclusions, nor does the poll constitute an official NSBA opinion or position. It is a collection of individual opinions gathered and tabulated solely for informational value. How Nebraska Judges are Selected and Retained: Judges of Nebraska courts are selected through merit selection or the “Missouri Plan.” When a judicial vacancy occurs, individuals interested in being appointed to the bench submit their names for consideration. Merit Selection judges are appointed by the governor, but the appointment is made after a politically balanced, nine-member commission reviews applicants, evaluates their qualifications, and holds public interviews. Comments from the public are encouraged and considered in the selection process. For each judicial vacancy, the commission selects at least three nominees whose names are sent to the governor for consideration and appointment. In a retention election, voters decide whether a judge should be retained on the bench or removed from office. A judge must run for retention in office in the first general election that occurs more than three (3) years after his or her appointment, and every six (6) years thereafter. When a judge runs for retention in office, the question presented on the voters’ ballots states: “Shall Judge ___________ be retained in office?” If there are more votes to retain a judge than to remove him or her, then the judge remains on the bench for an additional six (6) years. Note: Judges are listed in order by judicial district. Refer to the enclosed alphabetical index to find the page on which a judge’s name appears. Copies of previous survey results available upon request from Sam Clinch at the NSBA office, (402) 742-8125 or [email protected].

2018 Judicial Performance Evaluation Nebraska State Bar Association

JUDGES STANDING FOR RETENTION IN 2018 Supreme Court Stephanie F. Stacy

Nebraska District Court Rachel A. Daugherty J. Russell Derr James T. Gleason Vicky L. Johnson James G. Kube Lori A. Maret Thomas A. Otepka Robert R. Otte Leigh Ann Retelsdorf John E. Samson James C. Stecker Robert R. Steinke Susan I. Strong Derek C. Weimer Horacio J. Wheelock Mark J. Young

Nebraska County Court Linda A. Bauer Stephanie R. Hansen Russell W. Harford Gerald R. Jorgensen, Jr. Douglas L. Luebe Michael O. Mead James J. Orr Holly J. Parsley John P. Rademacher John F. Steinheider Derek R. Vaughn Thomas E. Zimmerman

Nebraska Separate Juvenile Court Robert B. O’Neal

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court J. Michael Fitzgerald Julie A. Martin

2018 Judicial Performance Evaluation

Nebraska Supreme CourtPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation.

Please rate each judge with whom you have professional experience on items #1-8 by writing one number in the appropriate space.

101 102 103 104 105

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable) n = No Opinion M

ich

ael G

. Hea

vica

n (

Sta

tew

ide)

Ste

ph

anie

F. S

tacy

* (D

ist.

1)

Lin

dse

y M

iller

-Ler

man

(D

ist.

2)

Will

iam

B. C

asse

l (D

ist.

3)

Jeff

rey

J. F

un

ke (

Dis

t. 5

)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 3.87 4.09 4.01 3.90 3.92

2Impartiality: actions not affected by any outside influence or the nature of the case

3.9 4.08 4.09 3.84 4.07

3 Attentiveness: oral arguments 4.34 4.49 4.36 4.32 4.30

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 3.95 4.15 4.03 3.99 3.98

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.22 4.40 4.37 4.05 4.32

6

Appropriate Communication: absence of undue personal observations or criticisms of litigants, judges or lawyers; from the bench or in written opinions

4.17 4.31 4.35 4.06 4.31

7Does the judge do his/her work in a prompt and timely manner?

4.12 4.14 4.17 4.21 4.15

8In your opinion, should this judge be retainedin office? (Circle the appropriate answer)

83.6% Yes 16.4% No

91.3% Yes 8.7% No

90.8% Yes 9.2% No

82.4% Yes 17.6% No

91.0% Yes 9.0% No

*Retention Date 11/2018

1

Nebraska Court of AppealsPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation.

Please rate each judge with whom you have professional experience on items #1-8 by writing one number in the appropriate space.

201 202 203 204 205

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion R

iko

E.

Bis

ho

p (

Dis

t. 1

)

Mic

hae

l W

. P

irtl

e (D

ist.

2)

Fra

nci

e C

. R

ied

man

n

(Dis

t. 3

)

Dav

id K

. A

rter

bu

rn (

Dis

t. 4

)

Fra

nki

e J.

Mo

ore

(D

ist.

6)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 4.06 3.93 4.16 3.94 4.19


4.09 4.28 4.28 4.22 4.36

3 Attentiveness: oral arguments 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.33 4.51



6


4.36 4.42 4.40 4.39 4.44

7Does the judge do his/her work in a prompt and timely manner?

4.13 4.24 4.30 4.24 4.35

8In your opinion, should this judge be retainedin office? (Circle the appropriate answer)

89.2% Yes 10.8% No

92.0% Yes 8.0% No

91.6% Yes 8.4% No

88.2% Yes 11.8% No

91.1% Yes 8.9% No


2

Nebraska District Court(2nd & 4th Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.

Please rate up to 30 district court judges with whom you have professional experience. Rate each judge on items # 1-13 by writing one number in the appropriate space.

301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion N

ath

an B

. Co

x (D

ist.

2)

Mic

hae

l A. S

mit

h (

Dis

t. 2

)

Geo

rge

A. T

ho

mp

son

(D

ist.

2)

W. M

ark

Ash

ford

(D

ist.

4)

Pet

er C

. Bat

aillo

n (

Dis

t. 4

)

W. R

uss

ell B

ow

ie II

I (D

ist.

4)

Tim

oth

y P

. Bu

rns

(Dis

t. 4

)

J. M

ich

ael C

off

ey (

Dis

t. 4

)

J. R

uss

ell D

err

* (D

ist.

4)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 4.05 3.91 4.06 3.59 3.83 3.80 4.28 3.88 4.11


4.20 4.29 4.20 3.72 3.81 3.95 4.30 3.97 4.05

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.37 4.38 4.40 3.71 4.04 3.91 4.30 4.05 4.26

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 4.17 4.18 4.12 3.65 3.84 3.85 4.26 3.91 4.16

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.45 4.66 4.54 3.91 3.97 3.91 4.46 4.06 4.37

6


4.41 4.54 4.54 3.93 3.97 4.04 4.39 4.15 4.35

7Performance of his/her work in a prompt and timely manner

4.29 4.21 4.22 3.50 3.87 3.99 4.30 3.89 4.17

8

Fairness: treats all equally, without regard to race, gender, age, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation or economic status

4.33 4.42 4.44 4.12 4.01 4.15 4.43 4.21 4.31

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 4.30 4.26 4.12 3.60 4.02 3.94 4.31 4.10 4.08

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.51 4.55 4.54 3.81 4.15 4.21 4.41 4.27 4.14

11 Trial Management 4.41 4.34 4.31 3.93 4.16 4.06 4.36 4.17 4.15

12Is your principal practice in this judge's district? (Circle the appropriate answer)

45.3% Yes 54.7% No

41.8% Yes 58.2% No

52.7% Yes 47.3% No

91.3% Yes 8.7% No

89.9% Yes 10.1% No

91.4% Yes 8.6% No

90.8% Yes 9.2% No

92.2% Yes 7.8% No

91.9% Yes 8.1% No

13In your opinion, should this judge be retained in office? (Circle appropriate answer)

94.1% Yes 5.9% No

94.2% Yes 5.8% No

94.4% Yes 5.6% No

86.0% Yes 14.0% No

88.8% Yes 11.2% No

87.9% Yes 12.1% No

97.9% Yes 2.1% No

89.6% Yes 10.4% No

90.3% Yes 9.7% No


Nebraska District Court(2nd & 4th Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.


310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion D

ua

ne

C. D

ou

gh

ert

y (

Dis

t. 4

)

Jam

es T

. Gle

aso

n *

(D

ist.

4)

Th

om

as A

. Ote

pka

* (

Dis

t. 4

)

Kim

ber

ly M

. Pan

kon

in (

Dis

t. 4

)

Mar

lon

A. P

olk

(D

ist.

4)

Gar

y B

. Ran

dal

l (D

ist.

4)

Lei

gh

An

n R

etel

sdo

rf *

(D

ist.

4)

Gre

go

ry M

. Sch

atz

(Dis

t. 4

)

Sh

elly

R. S

trat

man

(D

ist.

4)

Ho

raci

o J

. Wh

eelo

ck *

(D

ist.

4)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 3.80 3.50 4.49 4.07 3.29 4.22 4.19 3.74 4.23 4.58


4.09 3.54 4.52 4.25 3.69 4.15 4.16 4.00 4.26 4.61

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.09 3.62 4.66 4.44 3.73 4.35 4.35 3.92 4.42 4.72

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 3.83 3.59 4.50 4.27 3.47 4.32 4.30 3.89 4.31 4.63

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.30 3.51 4.66 4.41 3.96 4.18 4.22 3.86 4.43 4.66

6


4.24 3.53 4.66 4.43 4.07 4.18 4.23 4.09 4.40 4.65


3.99 3.58 4.41 4.25 3.66 4.17 4.29 4.10 4.37 4.59

8


4.30 3.82 4.68 4.35 3.94 4.34 4.37 4.21 4.45 4.71

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 4.10 3.69 4.29 4.19 3.69 4.15 4.28 4.16 4.28 4.37

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.31 3.99 4.51 4.37 3.99 4.13 4.39 4.20 4.44 4.60

11 Trial Management 4.14 3.78 4.48 4.38 3.80 4.35 4.36 4.18 4.41 4.51


90.3% Yes 9.7% No

90.2% Yes 9.8% No

90.4% Yes 9.6% No

91.1% Yes 8.9% No

89.9% Yes 10.1%No

89.5% Yes 10.5% No

88.3%Yes 11.7%No

91.8%Yes 8.2% No

91.4%Yes 8.6% No

89.8%Yes 10.2%No


90.7% Yes 9.3% No

78.6% Yes 21.4% No

97.8% Yes 2.2% No

92.9%Yes 7.1% No

74.2%Yes 25.8%No

91.5% Yes 8.5% No

94.1%Yes 5.9% No

86.6%Yes 13.4% No

93.9% Yes 6.1% No

96.7%Yes 3.3% No


Nebraska District Court(3rd District)


320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion J

oh

n A

. Co

lbo

rn (

Dis

t. 3

)

Dar

la S

. Id

eus

(Dis

t. 3

)

An

dre

w R

. Jac

ob

sen

(D

ist.

3)

Lo

ri A

. Mar

et *

(D

ist.

3)

Kev

in R

. McM

anam

an (

Dis

t. 3

)

Jod

i Nel

son

(D

ist.

3)

Ro

ber

t R

. Ott

e *

(Dis

t. 3

)

Su

san

I. S

tro

ng

* (

Dis

t. 3

)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 3.89 3.73 3.78 2.87 4.01 4.03 3.79 4.06


3.86 3.85 3.98 2.94 4.18 3.87 4.04 4.20

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.08 4.09 4.17 3.27 4.34 4.22 4.22 4.38

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 3.97 3.96 3.98 3.16 4.17 4.11 3.87 4.27

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.22 3.77 4.30 2.71 4.35 3.90 4.19 4.38

6


4.23 3.90 4.29 2.95 4.37 3.96 4.24 4.36


4.15 3.90 3.89 3.08 3.90 4.22 4.03 4.23

8


4.00 4.00 4.24 3.28 4.21 4.05 4.20 4.32

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 4.09 3.66 3.96 3.19 3.93 4.12 4.14 4.27

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.25 4.15 4.32 3.68 4.28 4.31 4.27 4.29

11 Trial Management 4.14 3.92 4.20 3.42 4.00 4.15 4.01 4.30


81.6% Yes 18.4% No

88.7% Yes 11.3% No

86.8% Yes 13.2% No

85.6% Yes 14.4% No

85.0% Yes 15.0% No

85.3% Yes 14.7% No

86.2% Yes 13.8% No

87.3%Yes 12.7%No

13In your opinion, should this judge be retained in office? (Circle appropriate answer; )

87.7% Yes 12.3% No

83.0% Yes 17.0% No

91.3% Yes 8.7% No

55.4% Yes 44.6% No

94.7% Yes 5.3% No

88.9% Yes 11.1% No

89.6% Yes 10.4% No

94.1%Yes 5.9% No


Nebraska District Court(All Other Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.


328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion V

icky

L. J

oh

nso

n *

(D

ist.

1)

Ric

k S

chre

iner

(D

ist.

1)

Ra

ch

el A

. Da

ug

he

rty

* (

Dis

t. 5

)

Jam

es C

. Ste

cker

* (

Dis

t. 5

)

Ro

ber

t R

. Ste

inke

* (

Dis

t. 5

)

Geo

ffre

y C

. Hal

l (D

ist.

6)

Jo

hn

E. S

am

so

n *

(D

ist.

6)

Pa

ul J

. Va

ug

ha

n (

Dis

t. 6

)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 3.68 3.65 3.85 4.03 4.53 3.84 4.58 4.00


3.75 3.56 3.88 4.11 4.46 3.96 4.59 4.11

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.02 4.08 4.20 4.14 4.62 4.20 4.74 4.37

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 3.85 4.00 4.05 4.03 4.58 3.78 4.62 4.07

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 3.86 3.89 4.18 4.35 4.71 4.00 4.54 4.31

6


3.89 3.76 4.18 4.38 4.63 4.08 4.74 4.46


3.91 3.60 4.06 3.94 4.50 4.04 4.68 3.69

8


3.97 4.08 4.13 4.26 4.58 3.96 4.70 4.31

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 3.91 3.96 3.98 3.97 4.41 3.92 4.64 4.12

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.39 4.36 4.26 4.50 4.61 4.20 4.74 4.41

11 Trial Management 4.00 3.85 4.16 4.25 4.48 3.86 4.75 4.08


22.0% Yes 78.0% No

25.0% Yes 75.0% No

30.6% Yes 69.4% No

33.3% Yes 66.7% No

33.3% Yes 66.7% No

22.6% Yes 77.4% No

20.0% Yes 80.0% No

21.8% Yes 78.2% No


83.8% Yes 16.2% No

82.1% Yes 17.9% No

74.6% Yes 25.4% No

82.4% Yes 17.6% No

86.4% Yes 13.6% No

76.3% Yes 23.7% No

91.3% Yes 8.7% No

88.6% Yes 11.4% No




336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion M

ark

A. J

oh

nso

n (

Dis

t. 7

)

Jam

es G

. Ku

be

* (D

ist.

7)

Mar

k D

. Ko

zise

k (D

ist.

8)

Kar

in L

. No

akes

(D

ist.

8)

Ter

esa

K. L

uth

er (

Dis

t. 9

)

Jo

hn

H. M

ars

h (

Dis

t. 9

)

Will

iam

T. W

rig

ht

(Dis

t. 9

)

Mar

k J.

Yo

un

g *

(D

ist.

9)

Ter

ri S

. Har

der

(D

ist.

10)

Ste

ph

en R

. Illi

ng

wo

rth

(D

ist.

10)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 4.03 4.10 4.07 2.88 4.13 4.00 3.46 3.77 4.20 3.93


3.66 3.93 4.07 3.10 4.07 4.23 3.35 3.86 4.07 3.91




6


4.17 4.18 3.86 3.53 4.24 4.43 3.02 3.92 4.30 3.96


4.21 4.11 4.12 3.44 4.00 4.30 3.79 4.05 4.20 3.58

8


4.00 4.21 4.34 3.64 4.30 4.51 3.50 4.16 4.31 4.12





31.5%Yes 68.5%No

34.0%Yes 66.0%No

31.5%Yes 68.5%No

30.4%Yes 69.6%No

54.2%Yes 45.8%No

74.3%Yes 25.7%No

60.8%Yes 39.2%No

64.0%Yes 36.0%No

46.6%Yes 53.4%No

43.6%Yes 56.4%No


92.7%Yes 7.3%No

97.4%Yes 2.6% No

93.7%Yes 6.3% No

67.2%Yes 32.8%No

93.8%Yes 6.2% No

95.3%Yes 4.7% No

65.6%Yes 34.4%No

88.4%Yes 11.6%No

95.5%Yes 4.5% No

86.5%Yes 13.5%No




346 347 348 349 350 351 352

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion R

ich

ard

A. B

irch

(D

ist.

11)

Jam

es E

. Do

yle,

IV (

Dis

t. 1

1)

Do

nal

d E

. Ro

wla

nd

s (D

ist.

11)

Dav

id W

. Urb

om

(D

ist.

11)

Le

o D

ob

rov

oln

y (

Dis

t. 1

2)

Tra

vis

P. O

'Go

rman

(D

ist.

12)

Der

ek C

. Wei

mer

* (

Dis

t. 1

2)

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 3.74 4.52 4.09 4.14 3.86 4.19 4.10


3.74 4.39 3.93 4.28 3.82 3.86 3.82

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 3.78 4.46 4.26 4.44 4.14 4.25 4.41

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 3.69 4.54 4.14 4.15 3.76 4.26 4.05

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.15 4.45 4.34 4.53 3.86 4.05 4.32

6


3.96 4.50 4.24 4.57 4.00 4.16 4.27


4.07 3.85 4.33 4.30 3.64 4.25 4.23

8


4.04 4.40 4.09 4.30 4.09 4.15 4.24

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 3.96 4.06 4.15 4.12 3.86 4.26 4.19

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.30 4.37 4.48 4.38 4.50 4.55 4.50

11 Trial Management 3.88 4.37 4.20 4.39 4.00 4.11 4.14


53.7% Yes 46.3% No

45.3% Yes 54.7% No

44.6% Yes 55.4% No

50.9% Yes 49.1% No

44.1% Yes 55.9% No

45.5% Yes 54.5% No

43.2% Yes 56.8% No


85.3% Yes 14.7% No

96.4% Yes 3.6% No

93.9% Yes 6.1% No

91.5% Yes 8.5% No

85.7% Yes 14.3% No

84.6% Yes 15.4% No

85.7% Yes 14.3% No


Nebraska County Court(2nd & 4th Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.

Please rate up to 30 county court judges with whom you have professional experienceRate each judge on items # 1-13 by writing one number in the appropriate space

401 402 403 404 405 406

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion T

od

d J

. Hu

tto

n (

Dis

t. 2

)

Jo

hn

F. S

tein

he

ide

r *

(Dis

t. 2

)

Ro

be

rt C

. We

ste

r (D

ist.

2)

La

wre

nc

e E

. Ba

rre

tt (

Dis

t. 4

)

Ste

ph

an

ie R

. Ha

ns

en

* (

Dis

t. 4

)

Th

om

as

K. H

arm

on

(D

ist.

4)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 4.44 4.18 3.59 3.17 4.07 4.07


4.51 4.12 3.69 3.15 4.11 4.21

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.55 4.21 3.67 3.19 4.19 4.24

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 4.46 4.10 3.65 3.26 4.05 4.08

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.63 3.86 3.52 2.89 4.38 4.28

6


4.62 4.04 3.65 3.09 4.29 4.39


4.45 4.19 3.51 3.54 4.10 4.06

8


4.64 4.43 4.15 3.34 4.30 4.30

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 4.49 4.26 3.56 3.56 4.11 4.07

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.58 4.33 3.35 3.83 4.37 4.30

11 Trial Management 4.46 4.42 3.72 3.49 4.14 4.05


55.3% Yes 44.7% No

45.1% Yes 54.9%No

59.0% Yes 41.0% No

90.2%Yes 9.8% No

89.9% Yes 10.1% No

88.8% Yes 11.2% No


98.0% Yes 2.0.% No

93.5% Yes 6.5% No

83.0% Yes 17.0% No

62.5%Yes 37.5%No

94.8% Yes 5.2% No

88.1% Yes 11.9% No


9

Nebraska County Court(2nd & 4th Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.


407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415

Use this scale:


arc

en

a M

. He

nd

rix

(D

ist.

4)

Jo

hn

E. H

ub

er

(Dis

t. 4

)

Ma

rce

la A

. Ke

im (

Dis

t. 4

)

Sh

ery

l L. L

oh

au

s (

Dis

t. 4

)

Da

rry

l R. L

ow

e (

Dis

t. 4

)

Je

ffre

y L

. Ma

rcu

zzo

(D

ist.

4)

Cra

ig Q

. Mc

De

rmo

tt (

Dis

t. 4

)

Ste

ph

an

ie S

. Sh

ea

rer

(Dis

t. 4

)

De

rek

R. V

au

gh

n *

(D

ist.

4)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 3.75 3.69 4.03 3.92 2.63 3.66 4.02 4.29 4.11


3.86 3.70 3.93 4.03 2.73 3.63 4.04 4.32 4.33




6


4.08 3.69 3.98 4.10 2.53 3.73 4.20 4.45 4.49


3.81 3.87 4.12 4.16 3.01 3.90 4.01 4.37 4.24

8


4.10 3.95 3.99 4.17 3.01 3.75 4.13 4.42 4.40





86.2% Yes 13.8% No

89.3%Yes 10.7% No

92.3% Yes 7.7% No

91.7% Yes 8.3% No

91.4% Yes 8.6% No

91.4% Yes 8.6% No

90.4% Yes 9.6% No

91.4% Yes 8.6% No

91.2% Yes 8.8% No


83.7% Yes 16.3% No

91.1% Yes 8.9% No

86.4%Yes 13.6% No

91.7% Yes 8.3% No

52.6% Yes 47.4% No

82.9% Yes 17.1% No

92.6% Yes 7.4% No

99.1% Yes 0.9% No

98.2% Yes 1.8% No


10

Nebraska County Court(3rd District)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.


416 417 418 419 420 421

Use this scale:


att

he

w L

. Ac

ton

(D

ist.

3)

Ho

lly J

. Pa

rsle

y *

(D

ist.

3)

Tim

oth

y C

. Ph

illip

s (

Dis

t. 3

)

Ro

dn

ey

D. R

eu

ter

(Dis

t. 3

)

La

uri

e J

. Ya

rdle

y (

Dis

t. 3

)

Th

om

as

E. Z

imm

erm

an

* (

Dis

t. 3

)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 4.55 3.99 4.18 4.10 4.29 3.95


4.31 4.17 4.36 4.44 4.30 4.10

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.73 4.35 4.41 4.43 4.47 4.36

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing 4.51 4.25 4.25 4.31 4.31 4.29

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor 4.47 4.38 4.56 4.63 4.60 4.48

6


4.45 4.35 4.54 4.53 4.52 4.48


4.75 4.43 4.48 4.39 4.52 4.38

8


4.52 4.43 4.51 4.45 4.51 4.52

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 4.71 4.37 4.48 4.53 4.50 4.25

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.77 4.51 4.61 4.60 4.58 4.51

11 Trial Management 4.65 4.32 4.37 4.49 4.37 4.19


94.1% Yes 5.9% No

92.1% Yes 7.9% No

95.5% Yes 4.5% No

91.3% Yes 8.7% No

91.6% Yes 8.4% No

93.9% Yes 6.1% No


95.5% Yes 4.5% No

87.5% Yes 12.5% No

93.9% Yes 6.1% No

93.4% Yes 6.6% No

97.2% Yes 2.8% No

85.2% Yes 14.8% No


11

Nebraska County Court(All Other Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.


422 423 424 425 426 427 428

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion L

ind

a A

. Ba

ue

r *

(Dis

t. 1

)

Cu

rtis

L. M

as

ch

ma

n (

Dis

t. 1

)

Ste

ve

n B

. Tim

m (

Dis

t. 1

)

C. J

o P

ete

rse

n (

Dis

t. 5

)

Lin

da

S. C

as

ter

Se

nff

(D

ist.

5)

Fra

nk

J. S

ko

rup

a (

Dis

t. 5

)

Ste

ph

en

R.W

. Tw

iss

(D

ist.

5)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 4.33 4.33 4.12 3.70 4.29 3.96 3.97


4.47 4.47 4.04 3.71 4.24 4.00 3.94




6


4.63 4.63 4.26 3.62 4.30 4.21 3.94


4.59 4.59 4.15 4.26 4.37 4.36 3.97

8


4.67 4.67 4.26 4.00 4.45 4.29 4.25





29.4% Yes 70.6% No

33.3% Yes 66.7% No

35.7% Yes 64.3% No

44.4% Yes 55.6% No

45.8% Yes 54.2% No

47.5% Yes 52.5% No

43.8% Yes 56.2% No


96.2% Yes 3.8% No

97.0% Yes 3.0% No

87.5% Yes 12.5% No

82.9% Yes 17.1% No

95.5% Yes 4.5% No

84.4% Yes 15.6% No

90.7% Yes 9.3% No


12



429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437

Use this scale:


ou

gla

s L

. Lu

eb

e *

(D

ist.

6)

Ku

rt T

. Ra

ge

r (D

ist.

6)

C. M

att

he

w S

am

ue

lso

n (

Dis

t. 6

)

Ke

nn

eth

Va

mp

ola

(D

ist.

6)

Mic

ha

el L

. Lo

ng

( D

ist.

7)

Ro

ss

A. S

toff

er

(Dis

t. 7

)

Do

nn

a F

. Ta

ylo

r (D

ist.

7)

Ja

me

s J

. Orr

* (

Dis

t. 8

)

Ta

mi K

. Sc

he

nd

t (D

ist.

8)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 3.48 3.64 4.05 3.84 4.37 3.48 3.50 4.23 4.04


3.54 3.21 4.05 3.70 3.89 3.83 3.83 4.54 4.00




6


3.67 3.14 4.10 3.90 3.81 3.80 3.97 4.67 4.36


3.78 3.64 4.05 3.95 4.22 3.52 3.86 4.48 4.18

8


3.67 3.21 4.25 4.05 3.93 3.92 3.93 4.56 4.21





27.8% Yes 72.2% No

25.0% Yes 75.0% No

30.3% Yes 69.7% No

38.7% Yes 61.2% No

55.0% Yes 45.0% No

48.7% Yes 51.3% No

50.0% Yes 50.0% No

47.5% Yes 52.5% No

36.8% Yes 63.2% No


89.3% Yes 10.7% No

78.9% Yes 21.1% No

88.0% Yes 12.0% No

78.3% Yes 21.7% No

87.1% Yes 12.9% No

82.8% Yes 17.2% No

90.9% Yes 9.1% No

96.8% Yes 3.2% No

87.1% Yes 12.9% No


13



438 439 440 441 442 443 444

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion A

lfre

d E

. Co

rey

III (

Dis

t. 9

)

Ge

rald

R. J

org

en

se

n, J

r. *

(D

ist.

9)

Jo

hn

P. R

ad

em

ac

he

r *

(Dis

t. 9

)

Art

hu

r S

. We

tze

l (D

ist.

9)

Mic

ha

el P

. Bu

rns

(D

ist.

10

)

Tim

oth

y E

. Ho

eft

(D

ist.

10

)

Mic

ha

el O

. Me

ad

* (

Dis

t. 1

0)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 3.24 4.21 4.56 3.97 4.21 4.49 3.93


3.60 4.29 4.55 3.94 4.23 4.52 4.00




6


3.84 4.31 4.50 4.21 4.33 4.63 4.16


3.60 3.43 4.53 4.30 4.34 4.41 4.07

8


3.73 4.53 4.60 4.28 4.47 4.63 4.07





71.9% Yes 28.1% No

77.1% Yes 22.9% No

78.6%Yes 21.4% No

66.7% Yes 33.3% No

58.5% Yes 41.5% No

56.9% Yes 43.1% No

57.1% Yes 42.9% No


60.7% Yes 39.3% No

93.6% Yes 6.4% No

96.2%Yes 3.8% No

90.3% Yes 9.7% No

92.0% Yes 8.0% No

100.% Yes 0.0% No

82.6% Yes 17.4% No


14

Nebraska County Court

(All Other Districts)Please read all instructions before beginning the evaluation.


445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion A

nn

e M

. Pa

ine

(D

ist.

11

)

Mic

ha

el E

. Pic

co

lo (

Dis

t. 1

1)

Ed

wa

rd D

. Ste

en

bu

rg (

Dis

t. 1

1)

Ke

nt

D. T

urn

bu

ll (D

ist.

11

)

Je

ffre

y M

. Wig

htm

an

(D

ist.

11

)

Ru

ss

ell

W. H

arf

ord

* (

Dis

t. 1

2)

Kri

ste

n D

. Mic

ke

y (

Dis

t. 1

2)

Ra

nd

in R

ola

nd

(D

ist.

12

)

Pa

ul G

. We

ss

(D

ist.

12

)

Ja

me

s M

. Wo

rde

n (

Dis

t. 1

2)

Characteristics 1 Legal Analysis 4.27 3.96 3.91 3.93 4.31 3.86 4.08 4.06 3.67 4.08


4.22 3.96 3.86 3.87 4.38 4.20 3.17 4.18 4.00 4.17




6


4.57 4.23 4.05 4.03 4.48 4.27 3.46 4.24 4.50 4.50


4.38 4.19 4.27 4.23 4.48 3.79 4.00 4.38 4.14 4.17

8


4.41 4.27 4.09 4.07 4.54 3.93 3.67 4.35 4.36 4.33





63.4% Yes 36.6% No

77.4%Yes 22.6% No

62.1% Yes 37.9% No

76.5% Yes 23.5% No

46.9% Yes 53.1% No

38.1% Yes 61.9% No

55.0% Yes 45.0% No

44.0% Yes 56.0% No

57.4% Yes 42.9% No

60.0% Yes 40.0% No


94.3% Yes 5.7% No

96.3%Yes 3.7% No

95.8% Yes 4.2% No

87.1% Yes 12.9% No

100.0%Yes 0.0% No

86.7% Yes 13.3% No

61.5% Yes 38.5% No

94.1% Yes 5.9% No

100.0% Yes 0.0% No

92.3% Yes 7.7% No


15

Nebraska Separate Juvenile CourtPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation.

Please rate each judge with whom you have professional experienceon items # 1-13 by writing one number in the appropriate space.

501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below average and unacceptable)n = No Opinion L

awre

nce

D.

Gen

dle

r (D

ist.

2)

Ro

ber

t B

. O

'Nea

l *

(Dis

t. 2

)

Ro

ger

J.

Hei

dem

an (

Dis

t. 3

)

Lin

da

S.

Po

rter

(D

ist.

3)

Reg

gie

L.

Ryd

er (

Dis

t. 3

)

To

ni

G.

Th

ors

on

(D

ist.

3)

Eli

zab

eth

G.

Crn

kovi

ch (

Dis

t. 4

)

Ver

no

n D

anie

ls (

Dis

t. 4

)

Do

ug

las

F.

Joh

nso

n (

Dis

t. 4

)

Ch

rist

op

her

E.

Kel

ly (

Dis

t. 4

)

Characteristics1 Legal Analysis 4.46 3.77 4.20 4.03 3.76 3.67 2.82 4.05 4.09 4.00


4.36 3.57 4.30 3.53 3.27 3.34 2.31 4.19 4.07 4.00




6


4.39 3.86 4.53 3.69 3.33 3.57 2.24 4.28 4.35 4.15


4.61 3.86 4.52 4.32 4.06 2.19 2.74 3.81 4.14 4.07

8


4.63 4.34 4.48 4.03 3.70 3.81 3.14 4.40 4.39 4.16





33.3%Yes 66.7%No

29.6%Yes 70.4%No

49.1%Yes 50.9%No

47.4%Yes 52.6%No

48.3%Yes 51.7% No

48.2% Yes 51.8% No

73.6% Yes 26.4% No

73.9% Yes 26.1% No

73.1% Yes 26.9% No

73.9% Yes 26.1% No


97.5%Yes 2.5% No

97.5% Yes 2.5% No

95.7% Yes 4.3% No

91.7% Yes 8.3% No

81.6%Yes 18.4% No

78.3% Yes 21.7% No

60.6%Yes 39.4% No

88.9% Yes 11.1% No

91.8% Yes 8.2% No

90.3% Yes 9.7% No


16

Workers' Compensation CourtPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation


601 602 603 604 605 606 607

Use this scale:


irk

V. B

lock

, Lin

coln

Jam

es R

. Co

e, O

mah

a

J. M

ich

ael F

itzg

eral

d*,

Lin

coln

Dan

iel R

. Fri

dri

ch, O

mah

a

Joh

n R

. H

off

ert,

Lin

coln

Julie

A. M

arti

n*,

Om

aha

Th

om

as E

. S

tin

e, L

inco

ln

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 4.00 3.68 3.46 4.31 4.54 4.43 3.62


4.35 3.73 3.37 4.08 4.45 4.41 3.62




6


4.59 3.57 3.85 4.55 4.72 4.63 4.00


4.27 3.83 3.56 4.40 4.43 4.32 4.10

8


4.55 3.98 4.22 4.45 4.64 4.67 4.13





97.2%Yes 2.8% No

77.8%Yes 22.2%No

73.3%Yes 26.7%No

97.7%Yes 2.3% No

95.7%Yes 4.3% No

100% Yes 0.0% No

82.9%Yes 17.1%No


17

Federal Judges, Magistrates and Bankruptcy CourtPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation


701 702 703 704 705

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below averageand unacceptable)n = No Opinion Jo

sep

h F

. Bat

aillo

n

Joh

n M

. G

erra

rd

Ric

har

d G

. K

op

f

Lau

rie

Sm

ith

Cam

p

Ro

ber

t F

. Ro

ssit

er, J

r.

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 3.93 4.53 4.36 4.43 4.32


3.95 4.63 4.28 4.38 4.38

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony 4.29 4.63 4.48 4.51 4.44



6


4.44 4.66 4.21 4.49 4.59


4.21 4.17 4.39 4.40 4.37

8


4.35 4.68 4.48 4.46 4.41

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling 4.30 4.32 4.46 4.43 4.51

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings 4.57 4.72 4.69 4.72 4.68

11 Trial Management 4.43 4.67 4.60 4.56 4.51

18

Federal Judges, Magistrates and Bankruptcy CourtPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation


Magistrate Judges Ban

kru

ptc

y Ju

dg

e

706 707 708 709 710

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below averageand unacceptable)n = No Opinion S

usa

n M

. Baz

is

F. A

. Go

sset

t III

Mic

hae

l D. N

elso

n

Ch

eryl

R. Z

war

t

Th

om

as L

. Sal

adin

o

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 4.28 4.43 4.16 4.53 4.48


4.56 4.51 4.54 4.55 4.57

3 Attentiveness: arguments and testimony4.69 4.56 4.67 4.72 4.50

4 Opinions: quality and clarity of writing4.43 4.57 4.32 4.63 4.56

5 Judicial Temperament & Demeanor4.74 4.49 4.55 4.63 4.43

6


4.74 4.55 4.58 4.61 4.43

7 Performance of his/her work in a prompt and timely manner 4.60 4.55 4.29 4.71 4.64

8


4.80 4.66 4.73 4.74 4.61

9 Efficiency: Docket management and scheduling4.55 4.61 4.26 4.63 4.57

10 Punctuality: attendance at court proceedings4.80 4.67 4.75 4.78 4.71

11 Trial Management4.72 4.65 4.42 4.78 4.52

12In your opinion, should this judge be reappointed to the office? (Circle appropriate answer)

94.6% Yes 5.4% No

96.2% Yes 3.8% No

91.3% Yes 8.7% No

97.1% Yes 2.9% No

86.7% Yes 13.3% No

19

Social Security Administration Law JudgesPlease read all instructions before beginning your evaluation

Please rate each judge with whom you have professional experience on items # 1-11 by writing one number in the appropriate space.

801 802 803 804 805 806 807

Use this scale:

5 = Excellent (performance is outstanding)4 = Good (performance is above average)3 = Satisfactory (performance is adequate)2 = Deficient (performance is below average)1 = Very Poor (performance is well below averageand unacceptable)n = No Opinion G

.R

od

eric

An

der

son

Mat

thew

Bri

ng

Dav

id B

uel

l

Jan

E. D

utt

on

Ro

nal

d D

. Lah

ner

s

Mar

c M

ates

Ch

ris

Yo

kus

Characteristics

1 Legal Analysis 4.91 3.75 4.00 3.12 3.91 4.29 3.00


4.91 4.00 3.57 2.86 3.70 4.00 2.83




6


4.91 4.60 4.11 3.00 4.00 4.29 3.86

7 Performance of his/her work in a prompt and timely manner 4.55 4.00 3.56 3.69 3.92 4.00 3.83

8


4.91 4.00 3.78 3.27 4.00 4.29 3.29




20


INDEX

Legend S - Nebraska Supreme Court

A - Nebraska Court of Appeals

D - Nebraska District Court

C - Nebraska County Court

J - Nebraska Separate Juvenile Court

W - Workers Compensation Court

F - Federal Judges

M - Federal Magistrates

B - Bankruptcy Court

SS - Social Security Administration Law Court

* - Retention Date of 11/2018

Judge (Court) Page #

Acton, Matthew L. (C) 11

Anderson, G. Roderic (SS) 20

Arterburn, David K. (A) 2

Ashford, W. Mark (D) 3

Barrett, Lawrence E. (C) 9

Bataillon, Joseph F. (F) 18

Bataillon, Peter C. (D) 3

*Bauer, Linda A. (C) 12

Bazis, Susan M. (M) 19

Birch, Richard A. (D) 8

Bishop, Riko E. (A) 2

Block, Dirk V. (W) 17

Bowie III, W. Russell (D) 3

Bring, Matthew (SS) 20

Buell, David (SS) 20

Burns, Michael P. (C) 14

Burns, Timothy P. (D) 3

Cassel, William B. (S) 1

Caster Senff, Linda S. (C) 12

Coe, James R. (W) 17

Coffey, J. Michael (D) 3

Colborn, John A. (D) 5

Corey, III, Alfred E. (C) 14


Cox, Nathan B. (D) 3

Crnkovich, Elizabeth G. (J) 16

Daniels, Vernon (J) 16

*Daugherty, Rachel A. (D) 6

*Derr, J. Russell (D) 3

Dobrovolny, Leo (D) 8

Dougherty, Duane C. (D) 4

Doyle, IV, James E. (D) 8

Dutton, Jan E. (SS) 20

*Fitzgerald, J. Michael (W) 17

Fridrich, Daniel R. (W) 17

Funke, Jeffrey J. (S) 1

Gendler, Lawrence D. (J) 16

Gerrard, John M. (F) 18

*Gleason, James T. (D) 4

Gossett III, F. A. (M) 19

Hall, Geoffrey C. (D) 6

*Hansen, Stephanie R. (C) 9

Harder, Terri S. (D) 7

*Harford, Russell W. (C) 15

Harmon, Thomas K. (C) 9

Heavican, Michael G. (S) 1



Heideman, Roger J. (J) 16

Hendrix, Marcena M. (C) 10

Hoeft, Timothy E. (C) 14

Hoffert, John R. (W) 17

Huber, John E. (C) 10

Hutton, Todd J. (C) 9

Ideus, Darla S. (D) 5

Illingworth, Stephen R. (D) 7

Jacobsen, Andrew R. (D) 5

Johnson, Douglas F. (J) 16

Johnson, Mark A. (D) 7

*Johnson, Vicky L. (D) 6

*Jorgensen Jr., Gerald R. (C) 14

Keim, Marcela A. (C) 10

Kelly, Christopher E. (J) 16

Kopf, Richard G. (F) 18

Kozisek, Mark D. (D) 7

*Kube, James G. (D) 7

Lahners, Ronald D. (SS) 20

Lohaus, Sheryl L. (C) 10

Long, Michael L. (C) 13

Lowe, Darryl R. (C) 10

*Luebe, Douglas L. (C) 13

Luther, Teresa K. (D) 7

Marcuzzo, Jeffrey L. (C) 10

*Maret, Lori A. (D) 5

Marsh, John H. (D) 7

*Martin, Julie A. (W) 17

Maschman, Curtis L. (C) 12

Mates, Marc (SS) 20

McDermott, Craig Q. (C) 10

McManaman, Kevin R. (D) 5

*Mead, Michael O. (C) 14

Mickey, Kristen D. (C) 15

Miller-Lerman, Lindsey (S) 1

Moore, Frankie J. (A) 2

Nelson, Jodi (D) 5

Nelson, Michael D. (M) 19

Noakes, Karin L. (D) 7

O'Gorman, Travis P. (D) 8


*O'Neal, Robert B. (J) 16

*Orr, James J. (C) 13

*Otepka, Thomas A. (D) 4

*Otte, Robert R. (D) 5

Paine, Anne M. (C) 15

Pankonin, Kimberly M. (D) 4

*Parsley, Holly J. (C) 11

Petersen, C. Jo (C) 12

Phillips, Timothy C. (C) 11

Piccolo, Michael E. (C) 15

Pirtle, Michael W. (A) 2

Polk, Marlon A. (D) 4

Porter, Linda S. (J) 16

*Rademacher, John P. (C) 14

Rager, Kurt T. (C) 13

Randall, Gary B. (D) 4

*Retelsdorf, Leigh Ann (D) 4

Reuter, Rodney D. (C) 11

Riedmann, Francie C. (A) 2

Roland, Randin (C) 15

Rossiter, Jr., Robert F. (F) 18

Rowlands, Donald E. (D) 8

Ryder, Reggie L. (J) 16

Saladino, Thomas L. (B) 19

*Samson, John E. (D) 6

Samuelson, C. Matthew (C) 13

Schatz, Gregory M. (D) 4

Schendt, Tami K. (C) 13

Schreiner, Rick (D) 6

Shearer, Stephanie S. (C) 10

Skorupa, Frank J. (C) 12

Smith Camp, Laurie (F) 18

Smith, Michael A. (D) 3

*Stacy, Stephanie F. (S) 1

*Stecker, James C. (D) 6

Steenburg, Edward D. (C) 15

*Steinheider, John F. (C) 9

*Steinke, Robert R. (D) 6

Stine, Thomas E. (W) 17

Stoffer, Ross A. (C) 13



Stratman, Shelly R. (D) 4

*Strong, Susan I. (D) 5

Taylor, Donna F. (C) 13

Thompson, George A. (D) 3

Thorson, Toni G. (J) 16

Timm, Steven B. (C) 12

Turnbull, Kent D. (C) 15

Twiss, Stephen R.W. (C) 12

Urbom, David W. (D) 8

Vampola, Kenneth (C) 13

Vaughan, Paul J. (D) 6

*Vaughn, Derek R. (C) 10

*Weimer, Derek C. (D) 8


Wess, Paul G. (C) 15

Wester, Robert C. (C) 9

Wetzel, Arthur S. (C) 14

*Wheelock, Horacio J. (D) 4

Wightman, Jeffrey M. (C) 15

Worden, James M. (C) 15

Wright, William T. (D) 7

Yardley, Laurie J. (C) 11

Yokus, Chris (SS) 20

*Young, Mark J. (D) 7

*Zimmerman, Thomas E. (C) 11

Zwart, Cheryl R. (M) 19

Legend S - Nebraska Supreme Court

A - Nebraska Court of Appeals

D - Nebraska District Court

C - Nebraska County Court

J - Nebraska Separate Juvenile Court

W - Workers Compensation Court

F - Federal Judges

M - Federal Magistrates

B - Bankruptcy Court

SS - Social Security Administration Law Court

* - Retention Date of 11/2018


* Indicates Retention Date of 11/2018

NEBRASKA DISTRICT COURT INDEX District 1 County or Counties Judges Page Clay, Fillmore, Gage,

Jefferson, Johnson, Nemaha, Nuckolls, Pawnee, Richardson, Saline, Thayer

*Vicky L. Johnson Rick Schreiner

6 6

District 2 County or Counties Judges Page Cass, Sarpy, Otoe Nathan B. Cox

Michael A. Smith George A. Thompson

3 3 3

District 3 County or Counties Judges Page Lancaster John A. Colborn

Darla S. Ideus Andrew R. Jacobsen *Lori A. Maret Kevin R. McManaman Jodi Nelson *Robert R. Otte *Susan I. Strong

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

District 4 County or Counties Judges Page Douglas W. Mark Ashford

Peter C. Bataillon W. Russell Bowie III Timothy P. Burns J. Michael Coffey *J. Russell Derr Duane C. Dougherty *James T. Gleason *Thomas A. Otepka Kimberly M. Pankonin Marlon A. Polk Gary B. Randall *Leigh Ann Retelsdorf Gregory M. Schatz Shelly R. Stratman *Horacio J. Wheelock

3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



District 5

County or Counties

Judges

Page

Boone, Butler, Colfax, Hamilton, Merrick, Nance, Platte, Polk, Saunders, Seward, York

*Rachel A. Daugherty *James C. Stecker *Robert R. Steinke

6 6 6

District 6 County or Counties Judges Page Burt, Cedar, Dakota, Dixon,

Dodge, Thurston, Washington Geoffrey C. Hall *John E. Samson Paul J. Vaughan

6 6 6

District 7 County or Counties Judges Page Antelope, Cuming, Knox,

Madison, Pierce, Stanton, Wayne

Mark A. Johnson *James G. Kube

7 7

District 8 County or Counties Judges Page Blaine, Boyd, Brown, Cherry,

Custer, Garfield, Greeley, Holt, Howard, Loup, Keya Paha, Rock, Sherman, Valley, Wheeler

Mark D. Kozisek Karin L. Noakes

7 7

District 9 County or Counties Judges Page Buffalo, Hall Teresa K. Luther

John H. Marsh William T. Wright *Mark J. Young

7 7 7 7

District 10 County or Counties Judges Page Adams, Franklin, Harlan,

Kearney, Phelps, Webster Terri S. Harder Stephen R. Illingworth

7 7

District 11 County or Counties Judges Page Arthur, Chase, Dawson,

Dundy, Frontier, Furnas, Gosper, Hayes, Hitchcock, Hooker, Keith, Lincoln, Logan, McPherson, Perkins, Red Willow, Thomas

Richard A. Birch James E. Doyle, IV Donald E. Rowlands David W. Urbom

8 8 8 8



District 12

County or Counties

Judges

Page

Banner, Box Butte, Cheyenne, Dawes, Deuel, Garden, Grant, Kimball, Morrill, Scotts Bluff, Sheridan, Sioux

Leo Dobrovolny Travis P. O’Gorman *Derek C. Weimer

8 8 8



NEBRASKA COUNTY COURT INDEX

District 1 County or Counties Judges Page Gage, Jefferson, Johnson,

Nemaha, Pawnee, Richardson, Saline, Thayer

*Linda A. Bauer Curtis L. Maschman Steven B. Timm

12 12 12

District 2 County or Counties Judges Page Cass, Sarpy, Otoe Todd J. Hutton

*John F. Steinheider Robert C. Wester

9 9 9

District 3 County or Counties Judges Page Lancaster Matthew L. Acton

*Holly J. Parsley Timothy C. Phillips Rodney D. Reuter Laurie J. Yardley *Thomas E. Zimmerman

11 11 11 11 11 11

District 4 County or Counties Judges Page Douglas Lawrence E. Barrett

*Stephanie R. Hansen Thomas K. Harmon Marcena M. Hendrix John E. Huber Marcela A. Keim Sheryl L. Lohaus Darryl R. Lowe Jeffrey L. Marcuzzo Craig Q. McDermott Stephanie S. Shearer *Derek R. Vaughn

9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

District 5 County or Counties Judges Page Boone, Butler, Colfax, Hamilton,

Merrick, Nance, Platte, Polk, Saunders, Seward, York

C. Jo Petersen Linda S. Caster Senff Frank J. Skorupa Stephen R.W. Twiss

12 12 12 12



District 6 County or Counties Judges Page Burt, Cedar, Dakota, Dixon,

Dodge, Thurston, Washington *Douglas L. Luebe Kurt T. Rager C. Matthew Samuelson Kenneth Vampola

13 13 13 13

District 7 County or Counties Judges Page Antelope, Cuming, Knox,

Madison, Pierce, Stanton, Wayne

Michael L. Long Ross A. Stoffer Donna F. Taylor

13 13 13

District 8 County or Counties Judges Page Blaine, Boyd, Brown, Cherry,

Custer, Garfield, Greeley, Holt, Howard, Loup, Keya Paha, Rock, Sherman, Valley, Wheeler

*James J. Orr Tami K. Schendt

13 13

District 9 County or Counties Judges Page Buffalo, Hall Alfred E. Corey, III

*Gerald R. Jorgensen, Jr. *John P. Rademacher Arthur S. Wetzel

14 14 14 14

District 10 County or Counties Judges Page Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin,

Harlan, Kearney, Nuckolls, Phelps, Webster

Michael P. Burns Timothy E. Hoeft *Michael O. Mead

14 14 14

District 11 County or Counties Judges Page Arthur, Chase, Dawson, Dundy,

Frontier, Furnas, Gosper, Hayes, Hitchcock, Hooker, Keith, Lincoln, Logan, McPherson, Perkins, Red Willow, Thomas

Anne M. Paine Michael E. Piccolo Edward D. Steenburg Kent D. Turnbull Jeffrey M. Wightman

15 15 15 15 15

District 12 County or Counties Judges Page Banner, Box Butte, Cheyenne,

Dawes, Deuel, Garden, Grant, Kimball, Morrill, Scotts Bluff, Sheridan, Sioux

*Russell W. Harford Kristen D. Mickey Randin Roland Paul G. Wess James M. Worden

15 15 15 15 15

Documents

NSBA...Peter C. Bataillon W. Russell Bowie III Timothy P. Burns J. Michael Coffey *J. Russell Derr Duane C. Dougherty *James T. Gleason *Thomas A. Otepka Kimberly M. Pankonin Marlon

NSBA...Peter C. Bataillon W. Russell Bowie III Timothy P. Burns J. Michael Coffey J. Russell Derr Duane C. Dougherty James T. Gleason *Thomas A. Otepka Kimberly M. Pankonin Marlon