According to the Supreme Court of Nevada opinion granting a writ of mandamus, Judge Scotti’s prior restraint of the RJ and AP did not pass “constitutional muster.” [RJ]
Last week the Supreme Court issued an unpublished decision in Aliante Master Association v. Prem Deferred Trust, reversing a decision by Judge Mark Denton that had awarded almost $1 million against the association. It also addresses the issue of class certification and amounts to a big win for HOAs and their collection agents.
Another decision making the rounds comes from Judge Lloyd George in Bridge v. Credit One Financialin which he ruled that a class action could not be certified in a TCPA case involving “capture” of a son’s cell phone number when he logged into his mother’s Credit One account without her permission.
Yeah, Williams was right. Scotti was wrong. NSC applied the law. They should do that all day, every day. Apply the law. You ruin our lives as attorneys. You discipline us for breathing, same goes for the judiciary.
Be ethical, apply the law. I know I am living in a cartoon, but do your fucking job, or you get no money and you get voted out.
100 percent. They don't apply the law. And I go back to the comment last week– if NSC can knock this case out in a week, how about all of those poor schmucks who wait 2.5 years to get a decision? We have an appeal where the issue became moot in January 2018 because the NSC still has not ruled on it (even with Motions saying "We really need a ruling").
The NSC suggests that maybe Williams was wrong and that there was a privacy interest, but since the autopsies are already out there, Scotti's decision was whackadoodle. Wonder what that means for the Williams appeal?
There is a privacy interest. Williams recognized that there is a privacy interest that was protected by redaction when balanced against the competing rights. Scotti's Order to unring the bell is nutty.
Race to the bottom: Scotti and Hardy (with Tierra not able to keep up with how bad these 2 are).
Eh, not an issue I have dealt with, but I imagine estates could. Estates can have all kinds of interests (like, e.g., IP interests) that dead people don't have as a practical matter.
3:07 — RIGHT OF PUBLICITY: Most legislatures have adopted a term of years after the death of the celebrity, ranging from 20 years (in Virginia) to 100 years (Indiana and Oklahoma). One state, Tennessee, allows the right to last indefinitely, as long as it is being exploited (see Elvis Presley).
Yeah, Williams was right. Scotti was wrong. NSC applied the law. They should do that all day, every day. Apply the law. You ruin our lives as attorneys. You discipline us for breathing, same goes for the judiciary.
Be ethical, apply the law. I know I am living in a cartoon, but do your fucking job, or you get no money and you get voted out.
100 percent. They don't apply the law. And I go back to the comment last week– if NSC can knock this case out in a week, how about all of those poor schmucks who wait 2.5 years to get a decision? We have an appeal where the issue became moot in January 2018 because the NSC still has not ruled on it (even with Motions saying "We really need a ruling").
911, good post. No offense on the 0911 reference.
The Aliante Decision is going to clean the deck of all of those Higher Ground class actions. It was clearly the right decision.
and uhh… when is that gonna come out? not listed in forthcoming. but it's true, the NSC treated James Adams like he was an idiot.
nevermind… seeing it as unpublished now. really thought it would be a published decision. it should clean a lot of them up. Thanks
And it was en banc
Yes they heard argument en banc around January 3rd so most in the HOA community expected a published opinion.
Need to request publication
The NSC suggests that maybe Williams was wrong and that there was a privacy interest, but since the autopsies are already out there, Scotti's decision was whackadoodle. Wonder what that means for the Williams appeal?
There is a privacy interest. Williams recognized that there is a privacy interest that was protected by redaction when balanced against the competing rights. Scotti's Order to unring the bell is nutty.
Race to the bottom: Scotti and Hardy (with Tierra not able to keep up with how bad these 2 are).
What's the privacy interest? The Supreme Court said it assumed without deciding there was a legally protectable privacy interest.
Yeah if anything the opinion seemed skeptical that there was a privacy interest, noting the redactions.
Even if there weren't redactions, what's the privacy interest? Dead people generally don't have privacy interests, do they?
Eh, not an issue I have dealt with, but I imagine estates could. Estates can have all kinds of interests (like, e.g., IP interests) that dead people don't have as a practical matter.
3:07 — RIGHT OF PUBLICITY: Most legislatures have adopted a term of years after the death of the celebrity, ranging from 20 years (in Virginia) to 100 years (Indiana and Oklahoma). One state, Tennessee, allows the right to last indefinitely, as long as it is being exploited (see Elvis Presley).
Right of publicity (right to commercially exploit a person's name and likeness) is very different than rights of privacy for decedents.
I think the argument was an autopsy contains personal medical information that children of the deceased have an interest in keeping confidential.
Children of the deceased have no privacy interest in someone else's autopsy. It is not their medical information being published.
Interesting forthcoming opinion:
•69410/69896 – Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd.
First time that I have seen the NSC vacate an CoA Opinion and agree to issue a de novo Opinion.
All the usual characters were in court at today's Fontainebleau hearing in front of Judge Allf.
such as?
Voldemort?
Lol @ the Stubbs order on Facebook
Last day to pay bar dues without a late fee, and the NV Bar site crashes just after everyone at the SBN office has left for the day.