Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2012 Full List Judge Noble

Ninth Judicial District - Rio Blanco County Judge


Reports:
2012 Retention Survey Report
2011 Interim Survey Report
2009 Interim Survey Report
There is a more recent evaluation available for this judge. You can access the evaluation here.

Honorable Laurie Noble

Retention year: 2012
Recommendation: Retain

The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Laurie Noble BE RETAINED.

Judge Noble received a Bachelor of Science in Journalism from West Virginia University in 1982.  She received her law degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1989.  Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July of 1992 and part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Meeker in 2005.  She continues to hold both positions.  Prior to her appointments to the bench, she was employed in private practice, focusing on insurance defense and appellate work.  Her community activities include involvement with the Partners program, school activities and presentations, foster parenting, and charitable support organizations. 

The Commission reviewed survey data from a cross-section of respondents: court staff, law enforcement employees, jurors, litigants, and lawyers.  The Commission reviewed Judge Noble’s caseload data, her self-evaluation and three opinions written and issued by her. Some Commission members observed her in court.  Lastly, the Commission conducted a personal interview. Attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Noble’s judicial performance above average. Both groups commented that she is fair, compassionate, kind, logical, knowledgeable, dedicated, courteous, approachable, conscientious, respectful, patient, intelligent, and maintains control of her court.  Some in the survey criticized her for a slight bias for the prosecution.  Members of the Commission found her written opinions carefully thought out, legally substantive, and clear.  All agreed she is a valued and valuable representative of the judiciary.

Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 93% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 3% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation.  Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 96% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain.  Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 82% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 9% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation.  Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 91% recommended to retain and 9% not to retain. (These percentages might not total 100% due to rounding.)