- Quickdraw McLaw
- 36 Comments
- 120 Views
- Congrats to the 56% of Nevada July bar exam takers who passed!
- Judge allows release of Telles’ financial information. [RJ]
- Murder of Jeff German brings historic challenge to reporter shield laws. [RJ]
- The HOV lanes are no longer 24/7, for now. [KTNV]
- Gender factor could decide LV Justice Court race (Goodey v. Gonzalez). [Nevada Current]
- Wilson gives Berkley a run for his money in Justice Court race. [Nevada Current]
- Whether you call it Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day, can we all get on the same page about it being a federal holiday that should be observed as a day off by the courts and schools and all of us?
FIRST and TTHHWWAACCKK!! #FreeColumbus
We already get Nevada Day off in October. I think April is the month that really needs a holiday.
Pish Posh. Everyone knows that it's November that's really deprived of holidays.
Three holidays in November isn't enough?
March! March needs a holiday. It is so long!
Goodey is Boyd '10 and a woman. Shoe in!
I have a weird procedural issue and would love to hear from my esteemed colleagues.
I represent a Defendant, but I've never appeared in court for this case. Before I would have had to appear, the case was dismissed by the court due to lack of activity. Eventually, Plaintiff realized what had happened and filed a motion to set aside the default. (I'm not getting into the merits of any arguments for/against the motion here.) I'm on the service list because I want to monitor the case, but again, I've never appeared. I don't think that I have any standing to oppose the motion, and I am hoping the court will evaluate the motion on its merits without an opposition. Am I wrong? Should I file an opposition regardless? Or maybe make a special appearance?
What would be the point of you appearing? First, it's without prejudice anyway. It's not a default. Second, EDCR 2.90 basically grants that motion as long as it's filed within 30 days of the NEO. Now, if it's outside that timeframe, and the SOL has run, then you have a dog in the fight. It's special appearance time.
For funsies, read Wolfe Thompson v. US Bank, NSC 79660, where the NEO wasn't filed, so the 30-day time limit for EDCR 2.90 didn't start running. A motion to reopen filed 9 months after the Order of Dismissal was therefore timely. I know the point of the NEO was raised on this blog a bit ago. Well, there you go.
First reaction to 1:44. Who is going to file the NEO? Not the dismissed party, and not the party that has never appeared. Interesting! I'll check out the order when I have some free time.
The dismissed party should absolutely file the NEO (especially if they have already appeared in the case).
Sure, the dismissed party should file the NEO, but if the consequence for not filing the NEO is that they have an unlimited amount of time to challenge the Order, why would they?
I haven't read the order, so maybe the situation is different enough that it makes sense.
Sorry by "dismissed party" I meant the party who is the defendant who got dismissed out of the case for want of prosecution. The party who benefitted from the dismissal would want to start that clock ticking.
Re the Justice Court races: Is it just me, or does it seem like these candidates are running harder than was once the case for these seats? I follow a few of them on social media, and holy hell, it is like morning, noon, and night, at every pancake breakfast, picnic, rubber chicken dinner, and self congratulatory "awards banquet" for some group that no one has ever heard of. "I was absolutely thrilled to be at Denny's this morning at 7:00 for the monthly breakfast of the Retired Left-Handed City Marshals of Filipino Descent on Their Mother's Side, or RLHCMFDTMS, for short." I'd considered putting my hat in a couple of times in years past, but no way could I do this, and also it has nothing to do with what kind of judge someone will be.
To be fair, the 7:00 AM Denny's RLHCMFDTMS breakfast is a great event!
As opposed to the RLHCMFDTFS. Those guys suck.
The controversy re: Columbus Day could be resolved in a way that satisfies all. It seems that Italian Americans are defensive about retaining this holiday because it serves as a celebration not just of Columbus, but of the standing of Italian-Americans in American society and history. Why not just have a generalized Italian American Day? It could celebrate Italian culture and the contributions of Italian immigrants to society. I don't know what it would be called, that is a question better left to creative minds and especially the Italian American community.
We should also have a day to celebrate Native American culture, but wouldn't it be better to do that in the context of the beauty of the culture in its own right instead of being overshadowed by the history of Columbus and Columbus Day?
This seems like a reasonable solution.
Here is the problem and permutation of your suggestion. Leave Columbus Day as a day to honor Italian-American contributions to American society but strip it of its designation as a federal holiday (much as St. Patricks Day is used to celebrate the Irish without all government buildings having to be closed). Indigenous Persons Day would have more support in my eyes as a corollary to Juneteenth or MLK Day (which frankly do seem duplicative in the oxen being gored).
Agreed. I'm perfectly happy with a Zamboni Day or whatever honoring Italian Americans, but it shouldn't be a federal holiday (and I say this as an Italian American).
Berkley has run a solid race, has signicant pltical pedigree, signaficatly outspends his opponent, a decent amount of signage, some good endorsements, etc.
But Wilson is female, and it is down to just on female vs. one female, and that is a significant factor in local judicial races, and she will benefit greatly from that. She has law enforcement endorsements, has( I believe) even more voluminous and more prominent signage than Berkley, etc.
So, it will be close but Wilson may take it. In fact, Berkley, in such article, pretty much references most of the same factors I have. He acknowledges the gender issue but is being gracious and diplomatic, and realizes he can do nothing to offset or combat that, and that if Wilson wins it is not becomes of the gender issue. Truth be told, gender would be a factor if she were to win, but Berkley is wise to represent that if Wilson wins that gender is not some major reason
Berkley is smart, ran a fine campaign, and can easily run again in the near future. So, it's very smart for him to take the approach he has–that if he does not win he has no excuses and wishes his opponent well in the office. He knows not to burn any bridges.
This young man acts gracious and dignified at all times, and that is presumably contributed to by his mother's great political instincts and knowledge(qualifier and concession: yes I know that she was not beloved by many of those on the right.). And his dad, veteran attorney Fred Berkley, is also a real smart guy who presumably offered some sound advice and guidance.
All that being understood, if you're a betting person it will be Wilson 52.5% to Berkley's 47.5%. So, although one of them will lose, this a relatively rare judicial race where I think WE win regardless of outcome, as I think they would both be quite fine on the bench.
Let me disagree. Wilson's signs are everywhere and eye-catching. Berkley's signs are not very eye-catching. They are harmless and benign. But Wilson appears to be running to win; Berkeley appears to just be running.
I still don't buy the female bias. And I'm female. Other factors can explain the female candidate prominence in the latest wave of judges. But maybe I haven't been around long enough in Las Vegas. But, I just don't see it.
"Other factors can explain the female candidate prominence in the latest wave of judges."
Like what? Not looking to argue. Genuinely curious. I am male but I don't see a reason to really get upset about the gender imbalance, unless it goes on forever, which I don't think it will.
5:51-What are you disagreeing with? 5:39 stressed that Wilson has superior signage, which is your point as well.
I guess we attorneys are kind of trained to be contentious and to reflexively disagree even when we are agreeing.
5:51 says Berkeley has run a solid race BUT Wilson is female and then says that will be a significant factor. I disagree there is a female bias, exactly as my comment states. Why are you so nit-picky, and wrong while nit-picking?
I mean, 5:39 says Berkeley ran….
The Berkley name does not count for much as Mama Bear has been out of the limelight for a long time. So many new voters and folks don't know her.
I think Amy will win because she is really working it hitting events. Her signs are everywhere. Berley acts like he is entitled to it when he has to earn it with voters. Plus I suspect Dems will take a beating this fall.
Why would there be a female bias? I really don't think that's true.
Berkley is a nice guy. I'm not sure what he's done since law school or whether it warrants voting for him.
3:03, 5:51–5:39 here. I don't think I am wrong(at least not totally wrong) that there is some gender preference in judicial races.
All local political operatives and consultants would agree with me, as well as all local political journalists. Could all those people be wrong? Perhaps, but unlikely.
Now, in fairness, it is important not to over-state the strength and effect of such dynamic. Also, admittedly the so-called evidence is largely anecdotal.
But, a couple matters cannot be ignored. If you ask people, you will be stunned with how many tell you they vote straight female ticket for judicial races if they otherwise don't know the candidate in certain judicial races. Yes, it's anecdotal, but still…
Also, look at our 2020 races. Between RJC and Family Court we wound up with 10 races in the General that came down to one female vs. one male. Females won all 10 races, including a couple RJC races with well-rated, well financed male incumbents with quite high name recognition, who lost, by quite some margin, to opponents with comparatively much less name-recognition, endorsements or campaign financing.
So, yes, the factor is not nearly as significant as some would insist(for example: male candidates who lost) and several factors are far more important. But I don't think the gender factor is non-existent.
6:16, agree that it is a factor of "some" import, but not great significance.
What is certainly true is that it is sometimes a handy excuse offered by unsuccessful male candidates who did not run a great campaign.
Hard for some to admit that the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
6:16, I'm glad you raised the 2020 woman wave. That was not due to a female bias, that was the Emerge voting block. I will say it wherever I can, DO NOT vote for Emerge candidates.
It was both. There is traditionally a significant pro-female advantage in Nevada judicial races. But, yes, Emerge brought matters to even greater level.
5:39-Basically agree with much of your assessment, but if you are generally so displeased with the choices in most judicial races, why don't you throw your hat in the ring and run ? Too many attorneys bitch endlessly about the judicial choices but never run and never recruit, and financially support, anyone one else to run who they think would make a good judge.
Ah, the why not run yourself response. Original.
5:42, very fair point. 5:39 here. If I were to run, that would simply amount to one additional judicial candidate I am dissatisfied with(namely, myself).
And even if I perceived I was well-qualified, I am certainly not well-connected and could certainly never raise a few hundred thousand dollars.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/7at7/breaking-news/?utm_campaign=7at7&utm_source=lvrj&utm_medium=breaking_news_banner
Live stream on hearing, re: whether German's devices can be searched.