- Quickdraw McLaw
- 78 Comments
- 234 Views
- Judge Bare rules that supermajority provision doesn’t apply to law that froze Opportunity Scholarship growth. [TNI]
- Democrats drop lawsuit against all-mail primary election. [TNI]
- Students are suing universities in class-action suits attempting to get refunds. [News3LV]
- A reader said some of you might be interested in Judge Earley’s May 1 minute order in case A731385 denying in part and granting in part George Ranalli’s request for $256,000 in attorney fees and $44,000 in costs on a denovo of $12.500 arbitration award.
- From a. Nevada Supreme Court press release:
Attorneys will appear from remote locations to make oral arguments before the Nevada Appellate Courts at the end of May and beginning of June using video collaboration tools.
The Clerk of Court has notified attorneys of the court’s requirements for making video appearances. Nevada Court of Appeals will hold oral arguments on May 27 beginning at 10 a.m., and the Nevada Supreme Court will hear arguments at 1:30 p.m. on June 1.
Unless otherwise ordered in a particular case, no in-person attendance at oral argument by counsel, the parties, or the public will be permitted. Using video conferencing will expand the court’s long-time practice of video conferencing for meetings between Las Vegas and Carson City.
The Courts will stream the oral arguments at https://nvcourts.gov/supreme so that the public and interested parties can listen to and watch the arguments in real time.
Today the US Supreme Ct is hearing argument regarding the birth control mandate. I'll be honest, I really don't get this. We're not talking about abortion, we're talking about birth control pills. Is there really an religion that holds that allowing people (not forcing them, just allowing them) to take birth control pills is immoral? Seriously?
You understand that most, if not all, birth control pills stop implantation of the fertilized zygote in the vaginal wall. They do not stop ovulation of the egg and the fertilization thereafter. If you think "life" is created when the sperm enters the egg and creates the first cell (zygote) then most birth control pills would "destroy" that cell's ability to implant and replicate. Everyone gets this… the government intervened and determined that a zygote that becomes a fetus only has a state purpose that exceeds an individual woman's right to choose once that fetus becomes viable — albeit, absent medical circumstances related to her health and safety.
11:22 — I'm not sure what source you're looking at. This is what I found:
How do birth control pills prevent pregnancy?
The birth control pill works by stopping sperm from joining with an egg (which is called fertilization).
The hormones in the pill stop ovulation. No ovulation means there’s no egg hanging around for sperm to fertilize, so pregnancy can’t happen.
The pill’s hormones also thicken the mucus on the cervix. This thicker cervical mucus blocks sperm so it can’t swim to an egg — kind of like a sticky security guard.
There are a lot of different types of "birth control." Not all of them work the same way.
So if you believe "life" or "personhood" begins at fertilization, theoretically the types that prevent ovulation should OK, but any type that prevents implantation of a fertilized cell, or otherwise destroys the zygote would not be.
But it is ridiculous to have the government or insurance companies splitting those hairs.
Also, I don't know if they have a specific name, but I know there are sects of Christianity and probably other religiions that do object to *all* birth control on the grounds that it encourages recreational / promiscuous sex, and they believe sex is only for reproduction.
Personally, I think birth control should be very easily available and cheap, or even free.
My aging face seems to be pretty good birth control haha
11:22 and 11:49 make interesting points, but 10:08's question was a non-technical one, limited to religious restrictions on birth control(in this case, prescribed pills).
An obvious focus would be on the Catholic Church. I believe that most practicing Catholics in The US do not have serious moral difficulties with medically assisted family planning(that does not involve terminating existing pregnancies). At least that's the evolution over the last few decades.
As for actual Vatican edict, a generally somewhat harsh stance was maintained till recent years. The current stance seems to be a little more general than it was, and is more based on tolerating the concept, rather than either actually embracing or actually opposing it.
But, again, I think most practicing Catholics in the US are now accepting of the concept, but in certain pockets of Europe there would appear to many Catholics who still closely adhere to the more restrictive and traditonal views of the past.
As for Protestants, there was once 72 separate sects of the Protestant faith, and perhaps now even a lot more. It may be that some fundamentalist sects still take a harsh view on birth control, and adhere to a literal view of the admonishment to be fruitful and multiply.
As for the Jewish faith, I'm not sure there is a clear, consistent consensus. It may vary between Reform, Conservative and Orthodox.
So, 10:08 raises a real interesting question, and hopefully someone can weigh in with some real details or guidance on this matter.
If I were more charismatic I would start a new sect in which it is immoral to *not* take birth control.
Whether Judge Bare is ultimately right or not, there does not seem to be any clear statutory or case authority limiting the super-majority requirement to situations involving increasing taxes or tax revenue. Often super-majorities can also apply to situations like over-riding an executive branch appointment, or other matters.
Some laws of course have sufficient annotated addendums, such as case authority or reference to legislative discussion, which often provides guidance. But that does not necessarily appear to be the case here.
So I'm not sure how he ferrets out the true "intent", or how he concludes what it was.Guess we'll have to wait for the appellate decision.
Shall we read the tea leaves to mean that all levels of the Court are going to be locked down until early June?
At least one northern Nevada district has extended its closure until June 1st. It was issued before Sisolak extended the stay at home order to 5/15 too.
I can't imagine the RJC opening anytime soon for the simple reason of the elevator issue. The line was tragically long before coronavirus, I don't see how to alleviate it post-coronavirus with social distancing requirements.
They will need to have fewer cases on each court's calendar and utilize the courtrooms for afternoon calendars as well. The judges may need to work longer than half days to accommodate this.
at 11:32
The elevator issue is a problem. If the departments would stop setting motion calendars on Tuesday morning, and spread them out over the week, it would be a big help. Working on Fridays would also help.
Use the stairs you fat bastards.
I don't want to get stuck behind count smokey and his ciggys.
Yeah, cause a bunch of out of shape lawyers and judges wheezing and coughing up and down a tight stairwell is the answer. Might as well just spray fart in my dinner.
I am pretty in shape but 16 floors in heels is not going to happen.
Stumbling into court like Fletcher Reed after his random bathroom attack. #needlessviolence
And the stairwells aren't climate-controlled either so you'll have all those fat bastards and bastette's overheating while the occasional slender little assholes slither through the mess.
Eeeuuwww
June Lockdown!!
Say it's not so. I need a haircut now. My hair is sticking out over my ears and is touching my collar. I look like a homeless person wearing a suit.
Why are you wearing a suit?
Ok, you caught me. Tee with shorts, flip flops. I still look homeless. Need haircut, will travel.
My kids are scared of me. And the wife is fuming that her unemployment is still not in after over a month. Rough times.
Who is screening CLE's these days. The State Bar is running a CLE right now that's just a sales pitch from a VOYA salesman. This has zero to do with anything legal.
Hogge and Hardesty
The questions being asked in this sales pitch by real attorneys are… ASTONISHING.
At least it's free. That is the only thing going for it so far.
Yep. The PPP CLE that Richard Dreitzer did last week was solid though. There's another one on Friday. Hopefully it's better than this. I can't stand financial salesmen offering condescending advice on things as basic as saving money. I give this guy credit though for figuring out how to trick the Bar into giving him an opportunity to make his pitch in the form of a CLE.
Yes, this one was a crummy commercial, but to be honest, I am more inclined to do these this way. I hope they offer more courses through this channel.
This CLE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU
Newest pet peeve (i know its small and petty):
Court files an order and all parties receive electronic notice of it.
Opposing counsel then files a seperate notice of entry of order and then files a seperate certificate of service of the notice of entry.
I hate when people waste my time and filing a seperate notice of entry and a seperate certificate of service does nothing but waste everyones time and increase attorney fees. The electronic notice from the court was all that was needed.
Agree, but the attorney notice is a hold over from the paper filing days and I suspect that most firms (and some judges) still think it is necessary. (Hang onto the Tyler Tech notice showing who was e-served should proof of service should later become an issue).
I agree with you about the Notice of Entry being completely unnecessary, but I interpret several procedural rules as requiring the Notice of Entry before certain deadlines begin running.
It sounds like you're saying that the rules have changed to no longer require Notice of Entry. I wasn't aware of that. Was that change part of this year's amendments?
Couple of comments:
(1) Courts are supposed to be filing the signed Order but in our experience are doing nothing more than e-serving the signed Order for the prevailing party to file. This means that the date of filing is not always the date of signing or service.
(2) Because I believe that that separate Notice of Entry is still required. Multiple rules of civil procedure still refer to "written notice of entry of judgment". In fact Rule 58 specifically references the Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment being separate documents that are to be filed and served separately. The Rule might be archaic but it is the rule.
(3) Now a separate Certificate of Mailing– well that is just stupid except in those cases (such as notices of motion in Justice Court or Orders Shortening Time) where there is some component of the pleading which you do not get back until a day later.
Service of written notice of entry is still required to start time running for certain acts, such as a notice of appeal or a motion for new trial.
Guess it depends on the court. I practice primarily in bankruptcy court and I don't ever file a separate Notice of Entry. Most regular practitioners there don't do NEOJ's, so it bugs me when I see one filed by a non-regular. There's a specific local rule on point:
Local Rule 5005
(e) Waiver. By executing a written waiver when they register for the electronic filing
system, participants consent to service by electronic transmission as provided below.
(1) The signed waiver constitutes waiver of the following:
(A) The right to receive notice by first class mail;
(B) The right to receive service by personal service or first class mail;
and
(C) The right to receive service and notice by first class mail of the
notice of entry of an order and judgment under Fed R. Bankr. P. 9022.
My bad that I've likely carried that practice of not doing NEOJ's over to my limited state court matters casue I assumed it was universal for efiling. It does seem duplicative, archaic, and pointless.
As to filing a separate Certificate of Service of a Notice of Entry of Order, that guy is just drumming up fees.
5:03 here, you need to read LR 5005 with FRBP 9022:
Rule 9022. Notice of Judgment or Order
(a) Judgment or Order of Bankruptcy Judge. Immediately on the entry of a judgment or order the clerk shall serve a notice of entry in the manner provided in Rule 5(b) F.R.Civ.P. on the contesting parties and on other entities as the court directs. Unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, the clerk shall forthwith transmit to the United States trustee a copy of the judgment or order. Service of the notice shall be noted in the docket. Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 8002.
When the clerk files the order, the corresponding electronic notification that everyone gets emailed is the Notice of Entry of Order. By agreeing to efile, you waive separate notice of entry.
Much easier and less paperwork. There's a reason e-filing stared in bankruptcy courts. You state court people will catch up in a few years.
Let me add one other (not related) practice tip: The Local Rules trigger many post-judgment deadlines from the date of the ENTRY of the Order/Judgment, not the SERVICE of the Judgment. So the lack of the NEOJ can make a material difference.
We had a Judgment entered one year where the Judge had the Judgment e-filed but it did not get e-served by the Clerk until 8 days later. Attorneys fees motions are to be 14 days after entry, which left 6 days from the entry and not 14 days from the service. Opposing party missed that the filed date on the top was not the service date and missed the deadline. Judge refused to enlarge time after the fact.
Come on, name please. It's a judicial election year. Inquiring minds want to know.
So a judicial candidate just withdrew and apologized to her opponents – from KLAS website:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ4i3lQM5lg&feature=emb_err_watch_on_yt
She should have apologized about a week ago. Wasn't sincere. Is the Bar even going to do anything this time?
Who withdrew (youtube video is music video…thanks for that)
Is this the Wingate brouhaha?
Rick Roll passe – Get Plasticized today
Who withdrew???
"I have decided, in light of the distractions created by the baseless allegations against me, that it is not feasible to continue my campaign. Therefore, effective immediately, I am suspending my campaign to spend more time with my family."
Full press release here: https://tinyurl.com/May6PressRelease
I get so tired of the "spend more time with my family" B.S. You got caught! That's why you dropped out!
I'm so Plasticized right now…well played, 12:24.
You can read it on the KLAS website. https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/
I looked, and searched. It is not there. I was hoping it was Bonnie Bulla.
I looked, too, it's not there. Who withdrew???
Brad Jerbic is not a judicial candidate. He is the City Attorney for the City of Las Vegas.
1:29 — Classy.
Yes, it is not classy to dislike Bonnie Bulla. I don't like her either.
4:58 — Huh?
I think 4:58 is using sarcasm. And they are allowed not to like Bonnie. I did not enjoy being in front of her in discovery, getting screamed at.
OK, just as long as you guys are admitting you've got no class . . .
Whatever candidate is being referred to in these posts, the deadline long passed to withdraw. So, if someone has abandoned their race, they are still on the ballot.
Usually when a judicial candidate "withdraws" when it is too late to be removed form the ballot, it is someone who didn't have much of a campaign to begin with, and no meaningful financial contributions and few meaningful endorsements.
After all, no one who is a viable candidate announces they are "withdrawing" when it is too late to be removed from the ballot. Instead they would simply stop spending money and stop campaigning, and wait and see what final percentage of the votes they wind up with on election.
Someone who is viable, but who has decided to campaign no further and spend no further, but it is too late to be removed from the ballot, would never announce they are suspending or terminating their campaign, as that accomplishes nothing except to run down the candidate's numbers on election day.
So, I call "bullshit" to this story of a judicial candidate supposedly withdrawing as that is no sort of legitimate or meaningful issue.
Can't withdraw. They are still on the ballot. If they wish to stop spending money, then fine. But they have not and cannot withdraw.
Again, all you could accomplish by withdrawing at this time is to cause people who would otherwise vote for you, not vote for you on election day.
The Rona and the heat make strange, uncomfortable bedfellows. Dr. Fauci warned about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ4i3lQM5lg&feature=emb_err_watch_on_yt
3:38 PM,
Did you even read the press release? https://tinyurl.com/May6PressRelease
What press release? Again, you've directed us to a Ytube video. I too call bullshit.
Hey 4:04, how about just telling us the name. Of course, there isn't a name.
Grow up and stop trying to rick roll everyone! There is no candidate withdrawing right now, there is just a juvenile person posting nonsense!
To 3:43 – I knew it was coming, and yeah, I went there…and loved it. El Plastico kills it every time.
I heard things just got extended again… 60 more days and 80 for trials. Has anyone seen this yet? I am going off of hearsay.
Stricken as hearsay
OK you all are killing me. Someone posted a "Rick Roll" to another video that yet another person (maybe same who knows) referred to a "Plasticized." No Judicial Candidate withdrew. In the meantime, Brad Jerbic, City Attorney actually gave notice. So you have many confused people on here. Unless, of course, I am the one confused.
Finally received an answer back from Wells Fargo on my PPP app. They slashed it by 80%. It's not difficult math here, assholes. You take the average payroll costs (which includes owners compensation below 100k), multiply that shit by 2.5, and you get the PPP statutory loan amount. Not the statutory amount minus 80% of the payroll costs.
Fuck Wells Fargo. My IOLTA and business accounts are getting the fuck out of there ASAP. Need recommendation for new IOLTA.
Don't go to Bank of Nevada. That is where the bar banks. Nasty aholes there.
I second 5:29. Worst bank and banking experience I've ever dealt with. It's owned by a guy in Phoenix who thinks he's God.
Oh Yeah, and he owns the Phoenix Suns. Call his office once and get a termination letter!
You'll never believe this, but I use Bank of America, and I'm actually pretty happy with them.
However, it helps a lot that there is a lady at my local branch who is very smart and knows what she is doing. She knew what an IOLTA was, how to set it up, and set up my other business accounts quickly and smoothly. No screwing around with people who have no idea what they are doing.
Along with Bank of America, do not use Washington Federal. Both suck ass.
Town and Country Bank. Small local bank, very good customer service. Got our PPP loan in the first round within days. This PPP debacle has shown how convenient it can be to have a personal banker.
Bank of George funded my PPP within a week. I closed my Bank of Nevada account in 2009 when they completely hosed me in the midst of that crisis. Never again.
Lets discuss the Great Supreme Court Flush
Good Job, i am waiting for your next post keep on updating these kinds of knowledgeable things..
lwayer in atlanta
bankruptcy lawyer