top of page
THE ROBING ROOM
where judges are judged
Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
District judge
W.D.Wis.
7th Circuit
Average Rating:
8
-
35
rating(s)
rating submitted
Please send me alerts on this judge
subscribed
Ratings:
What others have rated
Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
evaluator
ID
date
Temp* Sch* Indu* Comp* Punct* Ev-Cv* Ev-Cr* Flex Bail Crim Settle Trial Sent Coop Average
Civil Litigation - Private
28848
1/1/18
1
1
1
1
7
1
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
Criminal Defense Lawyer
21801
1/1/14
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Civil Litigation - Private
18448
1/2/12
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other
10159
1/1/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10092
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10094
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10104
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10109
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Litigant
10110
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
10113
1/2/10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Court Staff
10122
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10045
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10046
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10052
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10056
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
9863
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Litigant
8312
1/1/09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
5308
1/2/07
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Civil Litigation - Private
5193
1/1/07
2
4
6
0
1
8
8
3
8
7
1
9
7
0
4.8
Criminal Defense Lawyer
2872
1/2/06
7
8
5
5
9
0
3
1
5
5
0
9
8
1
6.2
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Fam
Par
Qu-Arg
At-Arg
Sch
Cri
Civ
Lab
Imm
How familiar are you with the work of this judge? (1=Not at all familiar,10=Extremely familiar)
Participates in Oral Argument (1=Rarely,10=Always)
Quality of Questions During Oral Argument (1=Poor,10=Extremely insightful)
Attitude during oral argument (1=Consistently inappropriate,10=Consistently respectful)
Scholarship as reflected in Opinions (1=Poor,10=Outstanding)
General Inclination in Criminal Appeals (1=Strongly ProGovernment,10=Strongly ProDefense)
General Inclination in Civil Rights Appeals (1=Strongly Pro-Defendant,10=Strongly ProPlaintiff)
General Inclination in Labor Law Appeals (1=Strongly ProEmployee,10=Strongly ProEmployer)
General Inclination in Immigration Appeals (1=Strongly ProImmigrant,10=Strongly ProGov.)
evaluator
ID
date
Fam Par Qu-Arg At-Arg Sch Cri Civ Lab Imm
Civil Litigation - Private
28848
1/1/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
21801
1/1/14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
18448
1/2/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10159
1/1/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10092
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10094
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10104
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10109
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Litigant
10110
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
10113
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Court Staff
10122
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10045
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10046
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10052
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
10056
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
9863
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Litigant
8312
1/1/09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
5308
1/2/07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
5193
1/1/07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
2872
1/2/06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-lawyer Rating
(if applicable)
evaluator
ID
date
Rating
Other
11649
1/2/10
1
Other
10230
1/2/10
10
Other
10162
1/2/10
10
Other
10069
1/2/10
1
Other
10070
1/2/10
1
Other
10081
1/2/10
1
Other
10089
1/2/10
1
Other
10097
1/2/10
1
Other
10101
1/2/10
10
Other
10105
1/2/10
10
Other
10058
1/2/10
10
Other
10063
1/1/10
1
Other
8793
1/2/09
1
category average
-
Temp*
Sch*
Indu*
Comp*
Punct*
Ev-Cv*
Ev-Cr*
Flex
Bail
Crim
Settle
Trial
Sent
Coop
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)
Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility in Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible 10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pre-Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions (1=Least Involved 10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators (1=10% 10=100%)
comments1
Comments:
What others have said about
Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
28848
rating:
2
I understand she is old and near the end. I hope that no one eulogizes her as anything other than what she was--a political, bitter person that somehow ended up on the bench. She lacks temperament and intellect and combines this with an obvious anger. Her record speaks for itself and demonstrates a level of frustration that just seeps from her conduct and decisions.
1/1/18, 3:52 PM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
21801
rating:
10
1/1/14, 9:27 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
18448
rating:
10
One of the best I've appeared before. Smart and decisive.
1/2/12, 1:06 AM
Other
comment #:
11649
rating:
0
Just received a letter from the Honorable Newt Gingrich concerning this issue. He states that the National Day of Prayer does not violate the First Amendment prohibition against the government establishment of religion. It, in fact, exercises the right to practice religion. It does not establish an official state religion nor require anyone to pray. As Americans, a commitment to religious freedom is the very cornerstone of our liberty Personally I'm sick of solitary liberal judges distorting and re-interpreting the Constitution, like this, that affects the entire nation, for their own legislative purposes and recognition!
1/2/10, 5:22 PM
Other
comment #:
10230
rating:
0
Wow! Excellent writing of the opinion supporting your judgment. Your logic was impeccable, and the language clear and concise. More importantly, the right answer. One more step in the right direction of reversing encroachment of religion into government. Each legal precendent helps rebuild the wall between church and state that our founding fathers intended, and that we so sorely need. Thank you your Honor.
1/2/10, 4:48 AM
Other
comment #:
10159
rating:
0
Have we forgotten that our founding Fathers acknowledged God numerous times. One of which is 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...'. The National day of Prayer is NOT an establishment of religion it is an acknowledgement of it. No one is forced to participate. It is not a law. We SHOULD acknowledge God because He is the reason for our becoming such a prosperous nation.
1/1/10, 7:14 PM
Other
comment #:
10162
rating:
0
The tyranny of the majority does not affect you, and so you are a hero in my book. Thank you for such a clear, uncorrupted judgment on the unconstitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. The arguments against your ruling prove its accuracy.
1/2/10, 8:19 AM
Other
comment #:
10069
rating:
0
For those posting praise here for this judge; you all seem to miss the most basic of facts. A. She is an activist whose rulings are clearly intended to 'make new law'. B. She has either no understanding of the Constitution or she deliberately ignores it. Either way, despite her courtroom demeanor, failure to uphold the US Constitution makes her patently incompetent by any measure.
1/2/10, 3:56 AM
Other
comment #:
10070
rating:
0
It is not now, nor will it ever be the role of a judge to “stand up against the majority and fight for what you believe in.” A judge’s only duty is to rule on the constitutionality of an issue before them. Additionally, the National Day of Prayer has nothing to with either a “federal ban on religion” or “the endorsement of religion”. It is rather, a simple acknowledgement as Samuel Adams said on September 6, 1774 on the second day of the Continental Congress in proposing the session be opened with prayer, in spite of the various Christian sects represented: “Christian men, who come together for solemn deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say there was so wide a difference in their religious belief that they could not, as one man, bow the knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose advice and assistance they hope to obtain.” American history is rife with examples of the founder’s approval, even encouragement of prayer in the public discourse and square. To argue otherwise is to deny both the founder’s intent and the reality of our history.
1/2/10, 4:40 AM
Other
comment #:
10081
rating:
0
One Word: Constitution!! God help us all!
1/2/10, 4:15 AM
Other
comment #:
10089
rating:
0
This is exactly what we get when liberals start stuffing the courts with their choices for judgeships. At 70+ years of age, you would think she might have gained some sense by now. Re-read the US Constitution and it's Amendments again, lady. You obviously have forgotten some of the pertitnent parts since you were in grade school.
1/2/10, 8:52 AM
Other
comment #:
10092
rating:
0
This country was founded on religious principles as we all know. Those of us who pray daily do not need a national day of prayer but a daily day of prayer.No one can stop you from praying and when your prayer is answered,dont forget to thank God for it.
1/2/10, 8:53 PM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
10094
rating:
0
I just wanted to say I appreciate you standing up for those of us who do not pray or believe in God. Thank you!
1/2/10, 3:17 PM
Other
comment #:
10097
rating:
0
Judge Barbara Crabb’s recent ruling concerning the unconstitutionality of the National Day of Prayer shows just how delusional and out of touch with reality she really is. Judge Crabb's ruling that atheists and agnostics could file a suit because they were “injured by being made to feel like outsiders on the National Day of Prayer” is absurd and supports my belief that this woman suffers from some type of mental disability or disorder, which should disqualify her from serving any longer as a U.S. District Judge on the bench of one of our nation’s highest courts. If she is permitted, she will next be outlawing Christmas on the same basis --because they, the atheists and agnostics feel like “outsiders.” Give me a break! Judge Crabb is not only out of touch with our nation’s history, but out of touch with reality. I believe that Judge Crabb is in all probability a secret atheist or agnostic who is simply putting forth her own personal beliefs and agenda, which she just happens to share with the 15,000 atheist and agnostic men and women (i.e. Freedom from Religion) who filed this lawsuit. As a Christian, I too have suffered “psychological harm” from Judge Crabb's recent ruling, therefore I plan to file on behalf of Heaven and earth and all of the Christians who dwell therein a judicial complaint against Justice Crabb on the basis that she having lost touch with reality is mentally unable to serve on one of our nation’s highest courts. Secondly, I will be filing a complaint against her on the basis that she, Judge Crabb, through her actions have caused me, and other Christians like me who love and accept the reality of the One true God and Savior Jesus Christ, great emotional harm. If the atheists/agnostics can sue the government on the basis of some self perceived 'psychological harm and injury”, than so should we Christians be allowed to file a judicial complaint against this Judge and have it taken seriously.
1/2/10, 10:20 AM
Other
comment #:
10101
rating:
0
Justice Crabb: thanks for taking a stand against religious thugs who would seek to cram their way of life down the rest of our throats using public resources. To the other posters on this board: I'm amused to think of a distinguished federal justice taking lessons on the constitution from zealots who write in all caps. Thanks for the laughs.
1/2/10, 11:19 AM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
10104
rating:
0
will she have the guts to make the same call about Black History Month? how about Gay Pride day OCt 11 they both discriminate based on either race or sexual orientation but I bet she doesnt have the guts to make THOSE calls
1/2/10, 1:42 PM
Other
comment #:
10105
rating:
0
How many of those critical of her Day of Prayer decision have actually read all 66 pages of her decision? It would add to their credibilty; otherwise, dismiss the troglodytes.
1/2/10, 3:22 PM
Other
comment #:
10109
rating:
0
The national day of prayer gives people the right to pray and this nation to take a unified stand. It also gives all US citizens the right not to pray if they so desire. Please leave the day of prayer alone. Its not about the government controlling religion and prayer its about civil rights for all citizens, religious or not!!!
1/2/10, 9:19 AM
Litigant
comment #:
10110
rating:
0
The constitution says 'congress shall make no law'. The president designating National Prayer Day has nothing to do with congress and is not a law. So Judge Grabb is full of beans.
1/2/10, 11:12 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
10113
rating:
10
66 pages of well-reasoned discussion of a difficult topic. I am a corporate lawyer and it took me 2 1/2 hours to carefully read and comprehend the opinion. Anyone who claims Judge Crabb needs to re-read the Constitution, etc. mus be written by a non-lawyer. The comments on this board show little comprehension of law and a lot of visceral reaction belying religious motivation. Ridiculous. Judge Crabb, I hope you don't bother to read these comments, but to the extent you do, thank you for taking the time to work out the issues presented in this case. Reading your Opinion was a pleasure, and the people who confuse your Opinion with your opinions have no real basis to criticize the job you've done.
1/2/10, 1:13 PM
HOME
bottom of page