Battle over drugs for execution ends without a decision. [News3LV]
An employee in the DA’s office family division tested positive for COVID-19, but appears to have had no contact with coworkers or the public. [News3LV]
Hospital denies treating mother before she killed her son. [RJ]
A judge in Lyon County awarded damages to a tenant locked out despite the eviction moratorium. [TNI]
The National Conference of Bar Examiners doesn’t plan to decide if the bar exam is going forward in July until May 5. [Las Vegas Sun]
The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments by teleconference in May. [via SCOTUSblog]
I haven't heard much about the district court judicial candidates lately. In the Departments without an incumbent, who are we supposed to vote for since we have nothing to compare it to? Is a criminal law attorney better for a civil seat than someone that comes from the plaintiff or defense bar in terms of bias? Do we need any more plaintiff or defense oriented judges? Are we voting for the women? What's going on here?
I don't love it when attorneys from the DA's office or PD's office end up on the bench with civil dockets. To be blunt, criminal law is not difficult or complex generally speaking. Civil law can present a number of very unique situations. For this reason, I generally like to support commercial litigators as they are most likely to have actually dealt with some of these issues. It's not that I think other attorneys are not capable of learning such things, I just don't want them doing it on my cases. The chances of them making a mistake are high, especially if they are trusting a random clerk who has less experience than they do.
I clerked for a former prosecutor, and I laugh any time anyone asks for my take on how he might rule on a civil motion. However the current clerk thinks it should go, bud.
Challengers, who are not incumbent judges, will have a hard time gaining traction through grass roots events, as they have largely been eliminated.
Since people who are not yet on the bench will have trouble with campaigning during the pandemic, if they are challenging a sitting judge this will be particularly problematic.
But in races where there is no incumbent, it will be like it always is–people will either vote for the female, or, in some cases, the candidate who was able to spend a lot of money to dramatically increase their name recognition.
But I don't see too many people this cycle, among candidates who are not incumbent judges, who have a lot of money at their disposal.
As to where new judges should be placed, if one was a career civil/litigation attorney, they should be placed in Civil Calendar. Those who practiced mainly in criminal law should be placed with Criminal Calendar. Those who practiced mainly in commercial litigation should be placed in Business Court, and so on.
But it seldom works that way. New judges are usually matched with a court wherein they have little or no experience with the subject matter.
And while they are (hopefully) learning on the job, it may be at the cost of your practice and your clients.
Some very solid comments here. Yes, generally speaking, criminal and family law are easier, and general civil and business law are more difficult, but there are A players in all fields. A criminal attorney could, in theory, become a good civil judge, but far and few are willing to put the immense effort and time in.
Judge Barker was one who struggled mightily and eventually became a decent civil judge. How many are as disciplined and naturally intelligent as him?
I am sad that so many women will just vote for the female candidate. How can there be such open prejudice in the modern age?
Judge Barker's learning curve was pretty good compared to others who came over from the DA's Office [Kephart](or Eric Johnson who has no learning curve at all and is getting worse).
2:44–if you are a challenger and your fundraising is going well, you have the fortune and foresight of having targeted an unpopular, damaged incumbent.
Fact is no matter how well-regarded a certain attorney may be, if they run against a solid incumbent, or even a middling incumbent for that matter, fund raising can be a real challenge.
So, I dare say that the incumbent you are targeting is someone who received a low retention score on the survey.
Which is as it should be. After all, no reason to replace reasonably solid incumbents. But some of these poorly performing ones really do deserve to be removed.
I honestly think that if 2:44 identifies themselves, and opens a discussion as to why the incumbent needs to be replaced, and how they would do things differently, this would generate some real interest and support for his/her campaign.
I have to laugh recalling trying to explain UCC article 2 to a judge who used to practice criminal law. The glazed eyes. The confused look. Staring at the law clerk. "Uh, thank you counsel, I'll, uh, take it under advisement."
I have to cry recalling trying to explain articles 3 and 9. Hopeless, even with powerpoints, and talking very, very slowly. That's why we have commercial courts.
I was not the person above, but I am also running in a department with an incumbent (15/Hardy). It has been challenging this cycle, largely because of the huge number of candidates.
I’m a PD who started off practice at a large civil firm. I’ve found civil to require more preparation and research, while criminal requires more thinking on your feet (and, from the defense side, creativity).
I’m running because I don’t think the incumbent is right for the job and was a political appointee. He has a nearly 40% reversal rate.
I know I’m opening up the discussion by posting under my name – but I’ve always believed more information helps the narrative.
Tegan, you have my vote without having to raise money. Vote incumbents out, except Villani.
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 6:08 pm
I am a miss as to think of one incumbent I am voting for. RJC or Nevada Supreme Court, except for Atkins and Villani. Pickering and Bulla ignore the law, so no on them.
Did you even read the article? The doctor is aware of the risk and is taking steps to protect herself and her child. Are you suggesting that every doctor should not see their children for an indefinite and unknown amount of time? The doctor is 100% correct that, if she was still living with the child's father, this wouldn't be an issue. Where does it end? All grocery store workers must have their children removed from them? What if both parents are "essential" workers that still work with the public and are potentially exposed to the virus-should the children be removed from the home? This is a horrible decision and incredibly damaging to both the child and the mother.
Why so angry? Yes, I read the article and simply disagree with you. I realize this is a stressful time for many but no need for anonymous attacks on your fellow attorneys who simply disagree. Civil discourse please. Having worked in a hospital during college, perhaps I am biased and unable to objectively comment but I remember the look in a parent's eye after their child Passed Away and I cannot describe it. I didn't know the human face could look so hollow and horror filled. The thought of any child dying from ANY exposure shocks my conscience. And yes, unlike your rhetorical questions presumed answers I would extend the order wayyyyy down the line until there is a low as risk as possible. But once again, maybe I'm not the one to ask anymore. Take care friend.
I'm a "shut it all down" hardliner and I think this is unconscionable. Should parents who work in hospitals lose custody of young children during cold and flu season? RSV and most strains of influenza are both almost certainly much riskier to young children than COVID-19.
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 8:15 pm
I of course can't prove it, but I don't believe some of the content of the tenant who received a judgment about being locked out from his apartment, and evicted, for non-payment.
Before I read the article I predicted it would include some b.s. about how the guy told the landlord that he would make full payment after returning form work in the evening. And, sure enough, that is featured in the article This was to create a further sympathy factor for the tenant, and to make the story more interesting and make the landlord appear as more of an ogre.
These landlords are well aware of the preclusion against evicting people for non-payment during the pandemic. So, if the landlord actually had good cause to believe that the tenant would pay by the end of the day, and yet he still evicted the guy even though it was now illegal to do so, he not only is the dumbest landlord I ever knew of, but is the first one I know who will go out of his way to avoid making money and greatly complicating his life.
I've encounter some really ruthless, morally challenged landlords. But they don't tend to be idiots. In fact, they are real good about collecting money and enforcing payments.
And, of course, the article is written as if it is a fact this guy was planning to pay at the end of the day, and that the landlord supposedly knew it. And, of course, the only source we have for this conclusion is the non-paying tenant telling us this. Nothing written is provided. Not even a text or email. Just,"I was going to pay him by the end of the day. Believe me."
So, charging him a late fee for not paying till the end of the day? Sure. But evicting him? No way. And worse yet, evicting him while the landlord knows it is highly illegal to do so,and the guy plans to pay by the end of the day, and there probably is no paying tenant ready to immediately move in? Yeah. Right. sell me the Brooklyn Bridge while we are at it.
The Landlord's behavior was egregious. SB 151 made what he did illegal before the Governor's order. The landlord didn't have the authority to lockout the tenant, even if he had an order for summary eviction or a writ of restitution in hand; only a sheriff or constable or their deputy may execute the order. It's also illegal to refuse to accept rent in full, if the pending eviction was a Pay or Quit action. This has nothing to do with the pandemic, the landlord tried to do a strong arm eviction and got called out on it. Kudos to Nevada Legal Services and to the JP as well.
POST SCRIPT: One question that's beyond my skill set to answer but that should be considered is whether the landlord should have been criminally charged with trespass.
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 8:15 pm
Unrelated Topic:
Any idea how the family court judges will be handling the inevitable influx of child/spousal support modification motions? Does a temporary reduction in income warrant a permanent reduction in support? Will there be any consensus among the judges on how to handle these?
@ 1:15
Q: Any idea how the family court judges will be handling the inevitable influx of child/spousal support modification…
Ans: Very slowly ..the moving party will need to take a second job while waiting.
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 8:22 pm
1:15–could be that there is some truth to what thee guy said, but there was a disconnect. Perhaps the guy called and told a receptionist, for the landlord's company, that he would be in by the end of the day to pay, but this was never relayed to the landlord.
Or perhaps it was relayed to the landlord, but the landlord had been promised payment repeatedly, and ran out of patience.
But whether the guy truly intended to pay or not is kind of a red herring, as either way it is illegal to evict him under the current law.
That said, I agree that this is included to make the landlord's actions seem even more egregious, and I also concede it cannot apparently be documented whether the tenant actually promised to be in later in the day with the payment.
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 8:27 pm
1:15 and 1:22. The story says he returned at 11:00 a.m. with the money.
That's a pretty specific assertion, so it may be true. But, again, whether he did or not it's clear that;(1)he probably had many previous warnings; and (2) Under the current law,#1 doesn't matter, and his attempts to make tardy payments and/or the other actions of the parties are now deemed irrelevant. He was wrongfully evicted under the current law.
Pretty much that's all that is particularly relevant
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 9:37 pm
Is there any reason we don't have designated civil and criminal departments? It seems like it would make so much more sense if we could evaluate someone's qualifications to be a civil or criminal judge, rather than whatever kind of judge the chief judge decides down the road.
It needs to be tried again. No slight intended, criminal and civil ARE different. We would have better performance and decisions. Balancing case loads? Any number of people in the work force can balance workloads. The problem is that judges don't have that kind of training or experience and are terrible at managing changing business(caseload) allocations.
Imagine if there were civil and criminal tracks? Just like we separate family court from the other courts. Who can deny having a business court has elevated the practice of commercial law?
Guest
Anonymous
April 13, 2020 11:14 pm
I just read this, and the cited decision, and wonder what in the world is happening. Can any one give me a reasoned basis for why such an opinion would be issued?
TLDR Mayor discourages easter services, Christian church seeks ex parte relief, Federal judge issues 22 page decision while actively refusing contact by city saying that there wasn't a ban or basis for injunction.
The general consensus is that it is an audition for appointment to a higher court. This judge was rated "Not Qualified" before this appointment, and he's already looking to move up, apparently.
Heh. I wrote that reply before reading the article. I guess you already knew that. I apologize, but there are no reasoned bases for issuing that opinion.
Guest
Anonymous
April 14, 2020 12:23 am
Is it better to appear on Bluejeans with audio or video?
We do not have video and were chastised by a certain Department that these hearings are being conducted via Video and that we would have to find a way to have video. Listen JEA, that is not how this works.
Guest
Anonymous
April 14, 2020 1:20 am
I have the fastest internet DSL line I can get for the home, but with the wife and the kids on streaming for work and school, I sometimes feel like I'm working off a dial-up modem. Any recommendations on solutions?
As we approach the first month of the lockdown I've been thinking about Osama Bin Laden. He was stuck in the house with three wives for five years. I'm beginning to wonder if he called the Navy Seals himself.
I haven't heard much about the district court judicial candidates lately. In the Departments without an incumbent, who are we supposed to vote for since we have nothing to compare it to? Is a criminal law attorney better for a civil seat than someone that comes from the plaintiff or defense bar in terms of bias? Do we need any more plaintiff or defense oriented judges? Are we voting for the women? What's going on here?
I don't love it when attorneys from the DA's office or PD's office end up on the bench with civil dockets. To be blunt, criminal law is not difficult or complex generally speaking. Civil law can present a number of very unique situations. For this reason, I generally like to support commercial litigators as they are most likely to have actually dealt with some of these issues. It's not that I think other attorneys are not capable of learning such things, I just don't want them doing it on my cases. The chances of them making a mistake are high, especially if they are trusting a random clerk who has less experience than they do.
When I clerked long ago, we did probably 90% of the work so point well taken re clerks
justice court seems like a better fit for career DAs and PDs
I clerked for a former prosecutor, and I laugh any time anyone asks for my take on how he might rule on a civil motion. However the current clerk thinks it should go, bud.
Challengers, who are not incumbent judges, will have a hard time gaining traction through grass roots events, as they have largely been eliminated.
Since people who are not yet on the bench will have trouble with campaigning during the pandemic, if they are challenging a sitting judge this will be particularly problematic.
But in races where there is no incumbent, it will be like it always is–people will either vote for the female, or, in some cases, the candidate who was able to spend a lot of money to dramatically increase their name recognition.
But I don't see too many people this cycle, among candidates who are not incumbent judges, who have a lot of money at their disposal.
As to where new judges should be placed, if one was a career civil/litigation attorney, they should be placed in Civil Calendar. Those who practiced mainly in criminal law should be placed with Criminal Calendar. Those who practiced mainly in commercial litigation should be placed in Business Court, and so on.
But it seldom works that way. New judges are usually matched with a court wherein they have little or no experience with the subject matter.
And while they are (hopefully) learning on the job, it may be at the cost of your practice and your clients.
I am a challenger to an incumbent, and my fundraising is doing well. Vote the bad judges out that is why I am running.
Some very solid comments here. Yes, generally speaking, criminal and family law are easier, and general civil and business law are more difficult, but there are A players in all fields. A criminal attorney could, in theory, become a good civil judge, but far and few are willing to put the immense effort and time in.
Judge Barker was one who struggled mightily and eventually became a decent civil judge. How many are as disciplined and naturally intelligent as him?
I am sad that so many women will just vote for the female candidate. How can there be such open prejudice in the modern age?
Judge Barker's learning curve was pretty good compared to others who came over from the DA's Office [Kephart](or Eric Johnson who has no learning curve at all and is getting worse).
2:44–if you are a challenger and your fundraising is going well, you have the fortune and foresight of having targeted an unpopular, damaged incumbent.
Fact is no matter how well-regarded a certain attorney may be, if they run against a solid incumbent, or even a middling incumbent for that matter, fund raising can be a real challenge.
So, I dare say that the incumbent you are targeting is someone who received a low retention score on the survey.
Which is as it should be. After all, no reason to replace reasonably solid incumbents. But some of these poorly performing ones really do deserve to be removed.
I honestly think that if 2:44 identifies themselves, and opens a discussion as to why the incumbent needs to be replaced, and how they would do things differently, this would generate some real interest and support for his/her campaign.
I have to laugh recalling trying to explain UCC article 2 to a judge who used to practice criminal law. The glazed eyes. The confused look. Staring at the law clerk. "Uh, thank you counsel, I'll, uh, take it under advisement."
I have to cry recalling trying to explain articles 3 and 9. Hopeless, even with powerpoints, and talking very, very slowly. That's why we have commercial courts.
I was not the person above, but I am also running in a department with an incumbent (15/Hardy). It has been challenging this cycle, largely because of the huge number of candidates.
I’m a PD who started off practice at a large civil firm. I’ve found civil to require more preparation and research, while criminal requires more thinking on your feet (and, from the defense side, creativity).
I’m running because I don’t think the incumbent is right for the job and was a political appointee. He has a nearly 40% reversal rate.
I know I’m opening up the discussion by posting under my name – but I’ve always believed more information helps the narrative.
Bravo! Good luck.
Tegan, you have my vote without having to raise money. Vote incumbents out, except Villani.
I am a miss as to think of one incumbent I am voting for. RJC or Nevada Supreme Court, except for Atkins and Villani. Pickering and Bulla ignore the law, so no on them.
Yay! "Judges should follow the law" guy is back. It's been a while.
First time post about these judges, but thanks for the troll, I am honored.
What kind of doctor would risk exposing their child? The fact that the doctor had to be told causes me to wonder –> https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/us/custody-coronavirus-er-doctor-trnd/index.html
Did you even read the article? The doctor is aware of the risk and is taking steps to protect herself and her child. Are you suggesting that every doctor should not see their children for an indefinite and unknown amount of time? The doctor is 100% correct that, if she was still living with the child's father, this wouldn't be an issue. Where does it end? All grocery store workers must have their children removed from them? What if both parents are "essential" workers that still work with the public and are potentially exposed to the virus-should the children be removed from the home? This is a horrible decision and incredibly damaging to both the child and the mother.
Why so angry? Yes, I read the article and simply disagree with you. I realize this is a stressful time for many but no need for anonymous attacks on your fellow attorneys who simply disagree. Civil discourse please. Having worked in a hospital during college, perhaps I am biased and unable to objectively comment but I remember the look in a parent's eye after their child Passed Away and I cannot describe it. I didn't know the human face could look so hollow and horror filled. The thought of any child dying from ANY exposure shocks my conscience. And yes, unlike your rhetorical questions presumed answers I would extend the order wayyyyy down the line until there is a low as risk as possible. But once again, maybe I'm not the one to ask anymore. Take care friend.
I'm a "shut it all down" hardliner and I think this is unconscionable. Should parents who work in hospitals lose custody of young children during cold and flu season? RSV and most strains of influenza are both almost certainly much riskier to young children than COVID-19.
I of course can't prove it, but I don't believe some of the content of the tenant who received a judgment about being locked out from his apartment, and evicted, for non-payment.
Before I read the article I predicted it would include some b.s. about how the guy told the landlord that he would make full payment after returning form work in the evening. And, sure enough, that is featured in the article This was to create a further sympathy factor for the tenant, and to make the story more interesting and make the landlord appear as more of an ogre.
These landlords are well aware of the preclusion against evicting people for non-payment during the pandemic. So, if the landlord actually had good cause to believe that the tenant would pay by the end of the day, and yet he still evicted the guy even though it was now illegal to do so, he not only is the dumbest landlord I ever knew of, but is the first one I know who will go out of his way to avoid making money and greatly complicating his life.
I've encounter some really ruthless, morally challenged landlords. But they don't tend to be idiots. In fact, they are real good about collecting money and enforcing payments.
And, of course, the article is written as if it is a fact this guy was planning to pay at the end of the day, and that the landlord supposedly knew it. And, of course, the only source we have for this conclusion is the non-paying tenant telling us this. Nothing written is provided. Not even a text or email. Just,"I was going to pay him by the end of the day. Believe me."
So, charging him a late fee for not paying till the end of the day? Sure. But evicting him? No way. And worse yet, evicting him while the landlord knows it is highly illegal to do so,and the guy plans to pay by the end of the day, and there probably is no paying tenant ready to immediately move in? Yeah. Right. sell me the Brooklyn Bridge while we are at it.
The Landlord's behavior was egregious. SB 151 made what he did illegal before the Governor's order. The landlord didn't have the authority to lockout the tenant, even if he had an order for summary eviction or a writ of restitution in hand; only a sheriff or constable or their deputy may execute the order. It's also illegal to refuse to accept rent in full, if the pending eviction was a Pay or Quit action. This has nothing to do with the pandemic, the landlord tried to do a strong arm eviction and got called out on it. Kudos to Nevada Legal Services and to the JP as well.
POST SCRIPT: One question that's beyond my skill set to answer but that should be considered is whether the landlord should have been criminally charged with trespass.
Unrelated Topic:
Any idea how the family court judges will be handling the inevitable influx of child/spousal support modification motions? Does a temporary reduction in income warrant a permanent reduction in support? Will there be any consensus among the judges on how to handle these?
@ 1:15
Q: Any idea how the family court judges will be handling the inevitable influx of child/spousal support modification…
Ans: Very slowly ..the moving party will need to take a second job while waiting.
1:15–could be that there is some truth to what thee guy said, but there was a disconnect. Perhaps the guy called and told a receptionist, for the landlord's company, that he would be in by the end of the day to pay, but this was never relayed to the landlord.
Or perhaps it was relayed to the landlord, but the landlord had been promised payment repeatedly, and ran out of patience.
But whether the guy truly intended to pay or not is kind of a red herring, as either way it is illegal to evict him under the current law.
That said, I agree that this is included to make the landlord's actions seem even more egregious, and I also concede it cannot apparently be documented whether the tenant actually promised to be in later in the day with the payment.
1:15 and 1:22. The story says he returned at 11:00 a.m. with the money.
That's a pretty specific assertion, so it may be true. But, again, whether he did or not it's clear that;(1)he probably had many previous warnings; and (2) Under the current law,#1 doesn't matter, and his attempts to make tardy payments and/or the other actions of the parties are now deemed irrelevant. He was wrongfully evicted under the current law.
Pretty much that's all that is particularly relevant
Is there any reason we don't have designated civil and criminal departments? It seems like it would make so much more sense if we could evaluate someone's qualifications to be a civil or criminal judge, rather than whatever kind of judge the chief judge decides down the road.
We tried that. Workloads ended up completely disproportionate and there are lots of resentment on the bench.
Makes sense. I didn't think about the need to flexibly redesignate departments.
It needs to be tried again. No slight intended, criminal and civil ARE different. We would have better performance and decisions. Balancing case loads? Any number of people in the work force can balance workloads. The problem is that judges don't have that kind of training or experience and are terrible at managing changing business(caseload) allocations.
Imagine if there were civil and criminal tracks? Just like we separate family court from the other courts. Who can deny having a business court has elevated the practice of commercial law?
I just read this, and the cited decision, and wonder what in the world is happening. Can any one give me a reasoned basis for why such an opinion would be issued?
TLDR Mayor discourages easter services, Christian church seeks ex parte relief, Federal judge issues 22 page decision while actively refusing contact by city saying that there wasn't a ban or basis for injunction.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/trump-bench-justin-walker.html
The general consensus is that it is an audition for appointment to a higher court. This judge was rated "Not Qualified" before this appointment, and he's already looking to move up, apparently.
Heh. I wrote that reply before reading the article. I guess you already knew that. I apologize, but there are no reasoned bases for issuing that opinion.
Is it better to appear on Bluejeans with audio or video?
We do not have video and were chastised by a certain Department that these hearings are being conducted via Video and that we would have to find a way to have video. Listen JEA, that is not how this works.
I have the fastest internet DSL line I can get for the home, but with the wife and the kids on streaming for work and school, I sometimes feel like I'm working off a dial-up modem. Any recommendations on solutions?
Move out of Midway?
As we approach the first month of the lockdown I've been thinking about Osama Bin Laden. He was stuck in the house with three wives for five years. I'm beginning to wonder if he called the Navy Seals himself.
@ 7:21
I know a good divorce lawyer. (smile)
7:21–Good One. Legitimate levity at a time when it is most needed.