Beyond the budget, will lobbyists convince the Legislature to pass bills on COVID-19 liability, criminal justice, and worker protections? [TNI]
The US Supreme Court cleared the way for the execution of a federal prisoner. [Las Vegas Sun]
Boyd Gaming lays off affect a lot of Nevadans. [RJ]
DA Steve Wolfson balks at Clark County’s proposed layoffs in lieu of a 5 percent pay cut. [Nevada Current]
What are you seeing in terms of unemployment in the legal sector? Are things getting better or worse? Does the new shutdown in California change your outlook?
Cut the Nevada Court Appeals. They are ineffective, unreported, and useless. They do exactly what Nevada Supreme Court wants them to do while
Issuing orders that ignore the law.
Did they, 8:57? I happen to agree with 8:56. COA is a joke. The opinions are crap, read them. Pull the briefs. I saw about 10 opinions recently that ignore facts and misrepresent the record. Bonnie Bulla was appointed to an appellate court not even being a judge before hand. But Nevada Court of Appeals is wonderful!
I sort of agree with the first post, Bonnie Bulla and Nevada Court of Appeals suck it. They don't do their job, and they ignore reported law. However, the Nevada Supreme Court is decent. I like Stiglich.
The Court of Appeals creates new arguments on their own that are not even in the briefs, unethical. On anither note, Lauren Presvia received $50k bail, what the fuk??
9:44, that's a complicated issue. The court has a duty to get the law right, even if the parties didn't brief the issue very well. But ruling against a party based on an argument that was never briefed and the party didn't respond to can be unfair. There's also rules about an appellant's failure to preserve an argument in the lower court. So it really depends on the case.
If both (or more) parties failed to raise an issue that the Court feels is important, the Court should issue a request to the parties to brief that issue, before the Court rules based on that unbriefed issue. That takes care of the Due Process issue.
As to the COA, the posts demonstrate a common theme on this blog–that people raise legitimate issues but then offer ludicrous solutions.
For example, 8:56 raises some points of arguable legitimacy as to problems with such court. But the solution offered is to abolish the court. Like that could ever happen after they spent all that time lobbying for its creation, and obtained all the funding for such project. Plus they are hearing many cases the NSC does not wish to hear, so the NSC are certain big boosters of the court, not to mention that the one Supreme Court justice was absolutely instrumental in the COA creation and funding.
Now, that said, I realize that "abolish" or "cut" the court are actually just venting of frustrations, and not intended as truly viable solutions.
Fair enough. But if we are going to complain how bad something is, then perhaps we should be suggesting viable solutions.
I certainly have no viable suggestions as the existing power structure heavily supports such court.
I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the COA. How much is their budget each year? Voters were promised a bill of goods by Hardesty a little over a decade ago, and he has not delivered on those promises. He and the Nevada Supreme Court want to name it after him, which is a complete conflict of law.
The Court of Appeals rulings are delayed, flawed, and unpublished.
In Symeonidis v. AMC, LLC, 2017 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 900, *6, 2017 WL 6513640 the esteemed court stated and held:
Last, despite Lantana's assertions that expert testimony is required to establish duty and breach in negligent-security cases, the Nevada Supreme Court has considered such cases and did not require expert testimony. Smith, 127 Nev. at 863, 265 P.3d at 693; Scialabba, 112 Nev. at 970, 921 P.2d at 931 (1996); Basile v. Union Plaza Hotel & Casino, 110 Nev. 1382, 1384-85, 887 P.2d 273, 275 (1994); Early v. N.L.V. Casino Corp., 100 Nev. 200, 204, 678 P.2d 683, 685 (1984). Thus, it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment simply because Symeonidis lacked an expert.
In Smith the word “expert” does not even appear in the opinion and the material issue was whether a duty of care was owed, not whether expert testimony was required.
In Scialabba the word “expert” does not even appear in the opinion, and like Smith the issue on appeal was whether the premise owner owed a duty to the Plaintiff, and not whether expert testimony was required.
In Basile the word “expert” does not even appear in the opinion and the issue on appeal was whether Union Plaza had reasonable cause to foresee the acts of a third person.
In Early the word expert is used one time in the following sentence: “Expert witnesses testified that almost every other casino in town had training programs for guards and elevated security desks.” Note that “Expert witnesses testified . . .” Thus, in the Early case expert witnesses actually testified. Early does not stand for the proposition that expert witness testimony is not required in a negligent security case.
The statement/holding by the COA in Symeonidis is a disgrace. If an associate turned in that work product they would be fired.
1:18–is it as simple as you suggest(simply defund them in the next session) or, as 1:08 suggests, are they now an established legal institution that will continue on regardless of any and all harsh criticisms. I suspect 1:08 is accurate and that it would be quite rare that a major court would be totally defunded a mere couple years after its much ballyhooed creation. And it's only we attorneys who are complaining about the court, and the public and the media is not really aware of our discontent. There are certainly no news stories or editorials that argue the COA is useless and call for its abolishment.
1:18 also asserts we were sold a bill of goods. It is true we were told that if the COA was approved that there would be minimal taxpayer impact as the judges and staff would not need their own building, but would simply double up with NSC and use their courtrooms when NSC not in session.
So, since the public would have been quite spooked if told that a building costings tens of millions would soon need to be financed, we were instead promised that no new building was needed and the taxpayers therefore only needed to incur the relatively reasonable, limited expenditure of paying for the salaries of the new justices and staff.
So, on that premise, the voters agreed to approve it,by a majority but not by some clear mandate,meaning that it never would have passed if the public had been far more accurately informed–that within a couple years their hands would be out asking for money for a brand new courthouse.
The first thing you can do is not vote for Bonnie Bulla, because she is the first one up for re-election. I am. As for removing the COA, go for it. They are not swell.
Guest
anonymous
July 14, 2020 4:22 pm
What is the latest that anyone has heard regarding the resumption of jury trials? I know the last AO set forth some dates, but that just seems unrealistic to me given the current stats on new cases and hospitalizations. I know they have that bench trial going on at the Convention Center, but I honestly don't see how jury trials can resume at anything close to a normal pace anytime soon.
All my jury trials that were coming next few months been pushed to early 2021. Judges seem to agree with the conclusion that jury trials cannot resume at a normal pace anytime soon
9:22 AM-Resumption of Jury Trials-The blog needs to do a topic on JURY TRIALS. How are they going to get anyone to serve on jury? How are they going to get seniors, teachers and even unemployed hospitality workers respond to jury summonses? How are plaintiffs going to get their cases resolved without jury trials? Will carriers settle without litigation and jury trials? How are criminal defendants going to get their day in court and their right to jury trials without the resumption of jury trials and jury pools???
Are plaintiffs getting antsy about the lack of trial settings? COVID is turning what was already a long process into a potentially indefinitely long process. If I had a good plaintiff-side case, I'd be pissed.
I'm sure will see more of a move to force settlement conferences, but the carriers know they can just stonewall or get away with offering someone enough to make the next couple of house or car payments, etc.
Ins Defense Counsel are making ridiculously low offers secure in the knowledge that the case will not be tried this year. There is no income for the PI Bar.
Plaintiffs are pissed at their attorneys. Otherwise, all is wonderful.
I'm defense counsel and I personally haven't done anything to deliberately devalue a case based on COVID19- or make low ball offers. I have been trying to get settlement discussions going mostly because I can't go to court and for my cases – noone is doing any depos. I've been spending my days drafting briefs and drafting endless discovery and it's exhausting. I don't know how attorneys who spent their days doing this prior to COVID did it. My ass hurts from sitting all day. I have to get up and walk around just to make sure there is circulation flowing.
I know how you feel, 2:49, and most of my settlements have been pretty close to what they likely would have been pre-COVID. But some of the carriers (the ones who were already a**holes to begin with) have as much as said that this is what they are doing. This entire thing is starting to wear on everyone both psychologically and financially I'm afraid.
I'm on the defense side and there are 2-3 cases that are super dumb and I just want them settled. I reached out to the other side, and I can't get anywhere with them. I'm not going to beg for a settlement. So if the plaintiffs' lawyers won't respond, then we're not going to get anywhere. I really don't get it. If I were a plaintiff's lawyer right now I'd be jumping for joy if a defense lawyer proactively tried to resolve a case I had been neglecting.
I was sitting for Judge Tierra Jones' calendar yesterday and she vacated all July trials and is setting for February,,, with in custody criminal trials set to 'hopefully' start in November and then the old out of custody for Feb. She was thinking about January for OLD civil trials but pushed those calendar calls back for status check
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2020 7:23 pm
I'm optimistic about the economy. My firm is looking to hire again and I've had friends recently receive job offers. It really depends on the type of law you are in.
When the history is written about this era, I suspect it will show that white collar professionals experienced something in the range of nothing to a mild recession while working class folks lived through a nuclear depression. I have never been busier. My net worth is up substantially since March, a combination of blowing cash into the stock market in late March and all the work I have done and collected on.
Never give a man something for nothing. Even if 3:39 wants to give it away, he should make 8:11 do something, anything. Perhaps agree to take on five pro bono cases? Or fill a car with supplies and drive around downtown handing them out to the poor?
Cut the Nevada Court Appeals. They are ineffective, unreported, and useless. They do exactly what Nevada Supreme Court wants them to do while
Issuing orders that ignore the law.
Somebody lost….. Sorry.
Did they, 8:57? I happen to agree with 8:56. COA is a joke. The opinions are crap, read them. Pull the briefs. I saw about 10 opinions recently that ignore facts and misrepresent the record. Bonnie Bulla was appointed to an appellate court not even being a judge before hand. But Nevada Court of Appeals is wonderful!
Second poster is my current trial judge.
Looking at the cases they get, it seems like a pretty boring job. Pay and benefits are nice though.
I sort of agree with the first post, Bonnie Bulla and Nevada Court of Appeals suck it. They don't do their job, and they ignore reported law. However, the Nevada Supreme Court is decent. I like Stiglich.
The Court of Appeals creates new arguments on their own that are not even in the briefs, unethical. On anither note, Lauren Presvia received $50k bail, what the fuk??
9:44, that's a complicated issue. The court has a duty to get the law right, even if the parties didn't brief the issue very well. But ruling against a party based on an argument that was never briefed and the party didn't respond to can be unfair. There's also rules about an appellant's failure to preserve an argument in the lower court. So it really depends on the case.
Ruling on a new issue never brought up by the parties is a due process violation. That is an abuse of discretion, so it is not really a complex issue.
If both (or more) parties failed to raise an issue that the Court feels is important, the Court should issue a request to the parties to brief that issue, before the Court rules based on that unbriefed issue. That takes care of the Due Process issue.
As to the COA, the posts demonstrate a common theme on this blog–that people raise legitimate issues but then offer ludicrous solutions.
For example, 8:56 raises some points of arguable legitimacy as to problems with such court. But the solution offered is to abolish the court. Like that could ever happen after they spent all that time lobbying for its creation, and obtained all the funding for such project. Plus they are hearing many cases the NSC does not wish to hear, so the NSC are certain big boosters of the court, not to mention that the one Supreme Court justice was absolutely instrumental in the COA creation and funding.
Now, that said, I realize that "abolish" or "cut" the court are actually just venting of frustrations, and not intended as truly viable solutions.
Fair enough. But if we are going to complain how bad something is, then perhaps we should be suggesting viable solutions.
I certainly have no viable suggestions as the existing power structure heavily supports such court.
Anyone have any practical solutions?
I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the COA. How much is their budget each year? Voters were promised a bill of goods by Hardesty a little over a decade ago, and he has not delivered on those promises. He and the Nevada Supreme Court want to name it after him, which is a complete conflict of law.
The Court of Appeals rulings are delayed, flawed, and unpublished.
Re COA being a joke:
In Symeonidis v. AMC, LLC, 2017 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 900, *6, 2017 WL 6513640 the esteemed court stated and held:
Last, despite Lantana's assertions that expert testimony is required to establish duty and breach in negligent-security cases, the Nevada Supreme Court has considered such cases and did not require expert testimony. Smith, 127 Nev. at 863, 265 P.3d at 693; Scialabba, 112 Nev. at 970, 921 P.2d at 931 (1996); Basile v. Union Plaza Hotel & Casino, 110 Nev. 1382, 1384-85, 887 P.2d 273, 275 (1994); Early v. N.L.V. Casino Corp., 100 Nev. 200, 204, 678 P.2d 683, 685 (1984). Thus, it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment simply because Symeonidis lacked an expert.
In Smith the word “expert” does not even appear in the opinion and the material issue was whether a duty of care was owed, not whether expert testimony was required.
In Scialabba the word “expert” does not even appear in the opinion, and like Smith the issue on appeal was whether the premise owner owed a duty to the Plaintiff, and not whether expert testimony was required.
In Basile the word “expert” does not even appear in the opinion and the issue on appeal was whether Union Plaza had reasonable cause to foresee the acts of a third person.
In Early the word expert is used one time in the following sentence: “Expert witnesses testified that almost every other casino in town had training programs for guards and elevated security desks.” Note that “Expert witnesses testified . . .” Thus, in the Early case expert witnesses actually testified. Early does not stand for the proposition that expert witness testimony is not required in a negligent security case.
The statement/holding by the COA in Symeonidis is a disgrace. If an associate turned in that work product they would be fired.
1:18–is it as simple as you suggest(simply defund them in the next session) or, as 1:08 suggests, are they now an established legal institution that will continue on regardless of any and all harsh criticisms. I suspect 1:08 is accurate and that it would be quite rare that a major court would be totally defunded a mere couple years after its much ballyhooed creation. And it's only we attorneys who are complaining about the court, and the public and the media is not really aware of our discontent. There are certainly no news stories or editorials that argue the COA is useless and call for its abolishment.
1:18 also asserts we were sold a bill of goods. It is true we were told that if the COA was approved that there would be minimal taxpayer impact as the judges and staff would not need their own building, but would simply double up with NSC and use their courtrooms when NSC not in session.
So, since the public would have been quite spooked if told that a building costings tens of millions would soon need to be financed, we were instead promised that no new building was needed and the taxpayers therefore only needed to incur the relatively reasonable, limited expenditure of paying for the salaries of the new justices and staff.
So, on that premise, the voters agreed to approve it,by a majority but not by some clear mandate,meaning that it never would have passed if the public had been far more accurately informed–that within a couple years their hands would be out asking for money for a brand new courthouse.
The first thing you can do is not vote for Bonnie Bulla, because she is the first one up for re-election. I am. As for removing the COA, go for it. They are not swell.
What is the latest that anyone has heard regarding the resumption of jury trials? I know the last AO set forth some dates, but that just seems unrealistic to me given the current stats on new cases and hospitalizations. I know they have that bench trial going on at the Convention Center, but I honestly don't see how jury trials can resume at anything close to a normal pace anytime soon.
All my jury trials that were coming next few months been pushed to early 2021. Judges seem to agree with the conclusion that jury trials cannot resume at a normal pace anytime soon
Kishner is the only judge I know that is setting civil non-priority cases for trial in 2020. They are supposed to start in October. Supposedly.
9:22 AM-Resumption of Jury Trials-The blog needs to do a topic on JURY TRIALS. How are they going to get anyone to serve on jury? How are they going to get seniors, teachers and even unemployed hospitality workers respond to jury summonses? How are plaintiffs going to get their cases resolved without jury trials? Will carriers settle without litigation and jury trials? How are criminal defendants going to get their day in court and their right to jury trials without the resumption of jury trials and jury pools???
9:51 – Profesional Jurors: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/professional-jurors-has-t_b_867839?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAModz7YCgJBWGCTadGlip_zqQ3POoXLFG6msjVnCN7ksFIiYmVjTKKDefivvkQHVZ1aV7Up2YKuGiU0X1ZfHJZhB-05TBehgVOi-622OyQ1gXOW9lKAG5nCr5KR4mwyrImjENvgVeV0b0M7UwSQ2jMyiKbXJHzThAE0G5Vhaks0G
Are plaintiffs getting antsy about the lack of trial settings? COVID is turning what was already a long process into a potentially indefinitely long process. If I had a good plaintiff-side case, I'd be pissed.
I'm sure will see more of a move to force settlement conferences, but the carriers know they can just stonewall or get away with offering someone enough to make the next couple of house or car payments, etc.
Ins Defense Counsel are making ridiculously low offers secure in the knowledge that the case will not be tried this year. There is no income for the PI Bar.
Plaintiffs are pissed at their attorneys. Otherwise, all is wonderful.
I'm defense counsel and I personally haven't done anything to deliberately devalue a case based on COVID19- or make low ball offers. I have been trying to get settlement discussions going mostly because I can't go to court and for my cases – noone is doing any depos. I've been spending my days drafting briefs and drafting endless discovery and it's exhausting. I don't know how attorneys who spent their days doing this prior to COVID did it. My ass hurts from sitting all day. I have to get up and walk around just to make sure there is circulation flowing.
I know how you feel, 2:49, and most of my settlements have been pretty close to what they likely would have been pre-COVID. But some of the carriers (the ones who were already a**holes to begin with) have as much as said that this is what they are doing. This entire thing is starting to wear on everyone both psychologically and financially I'm afraid.
I'm on the defense side and there are 2-3 cases that are super dumb and I just want them settled. I reached out to the other side, and I can't get anywhere with them. I'm not going to beg for a settlement. So if the plaintiffs' lawyers won't respond, then we're not going to get anywhere. I really don't get it. If I were a plaintiff's lawyer right now I'd be jumping for joy if a defense lawyer proactively tried to resolve a case I had been neglecting.
Hey 4:16, I've got three or four "credenza queens" like that. Maybe you can settle them for me!
I was sitting for Judge Tierra Jones' calendar yesterday and she vacated all July trials and is setting for February,,, with in custody criminal trials set to 'hopefully' start in November and then the old out of custody for Feb. She was thinking about January for OLD civil trials but pushed those calendar calls back for status check
I'm optimistic about the economy. My firm is looking to hire again and I've had friends recently receive job offers. It really depends on the type of law you are in.
What type of law?
When the history is written about this era, I suspect it will show that white collar professionals experienced something in the range of nothing to a mild recession while working class folks lived through a nuclear depression. I have never been busier. My net worth is up substantially since March, a combination of blowing cash into the stock market in late March and all the work I have done and collected on.
The whole thing makes me feel guilty, honestly.
Alleviate your guilt by giving money to me. It will make us both feel much better.
Never give a man something for nothing. Even if 3:39 wants to give it away, he should make 8:11 do something, anything. Perhaps agree to take on five pro bono cases? Or fill a car with supplies and drive around downtown handing them out to the poor?
1:33,
Funeral Home M&A.
I am not Black and LoBello, I am confused 414?