Someone in yesterday’s comments suggests that family court Judge Heidi Almase announced she will finish out her current term, but will not run for reelection next year.
People, please don’t respond to these even so much as downvoting. His whole purpose is for attention and to get a reaction. Don’t give him one. Maybe after 5 years or so of posting this with no reaction, he will finally tire of it.
I support his dedication. I will do everything in my power to ensure he feels vindicated and continues to post. With firstivus maximus we stand!
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2025 9:57 am
Good on Terry Wike generally on challenging the OBC; however think about the Streisand Effect my man. You now have multiple federal decisions publishing and re-publishing your suspension from the practice of law. Stop. You made your point, but stop.
CHECK THIS OUT. WHO FEELS SORRY FOR TERRY????
Between the time the panel heard this matter and when it entered its written recommendation, this court suspended Wike for two years with all but the first three months stayed, for the same type of misconduct at issue in this matter. . . . Considering Wike’s substantial experience in the practice of law, his insistence that his misconduct is not serious, and his improper use of the new trust account while the same type SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (O) 1947A 2It is unclear why the panel did not consider this suspension in its written order. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (O) 1947А of improper use of his old trust account was being investigated, we conclude an actual suspension is warranted.
“Considering Wike’s substantial experience in the practice of law, his insistence that his misconduct is not serious, and his improper use of the new trust account while the same type of improper use of his old trust account was being investigated” says it all for me. Good luck the third go around.
Likely nominal…. the action was a violation of the discharge injunction but you can’t hold a creditor in contempt for a violation of the discharge if there is an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’ actions…in this case the state bar, might be lawful. Further, he did this pro se, so no fees.
The sanction should be Hooge not being bar counsel considering he just got sanctioned. Just throwing that out there. My feeling is that he’d consider this a very serious case of misconduct for anyone but himself.
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2025 10:49 am
Re: the 9th Circuit ruling on the Sun v. RJ. I’m not a transactional attorney, but wouldn’t the transactional attorneys involved in negotiating this joint operating agreement have been responsible for making sure that the law was complied with? (I.e., that the attorney general signed off on it?) Did the attorneys for the Sun who handled the joint operating agreement screw the pooch here? Please enlighten me, trans attorneys. Thx in advance.
Guest
Anonymous
August 5, 2025 11:07 am
In the Complaint against Hyundai, they allege claims for “prima facie tort.” I could not find any case in Nevada adopting that doctrine. Is anyone aware of such?
What a f ing BS lawsuit. This is one of those situations where the clients and attorneys need to face real exposure. Let’s see if one of the esteemed Clark County jurists has the ovaries/cajones to decide that an intentional act by two thieving, murderous POS is a superseding, intervening act. Oh yeah, f Nevada law for the inability of a defendant to name a nonparty at fault and have liability apportioned to them.
2:04 PM–Hyundai liability. Hyundai knew that the failure to have antitheft devices and the failure to fix is unreasonably dangerous. However, the criminal acts of third parties–the defendants hitting the cyclist retired cop should cut off liability.The criminal acts of the defendants is an intervening superseding cause. End of story but this is Nevada where the rules go out the window.
3:11 Hyundai liability–Hyundai’s are easy to steal but the cause of the death was the intentional criminal act of two thugs who intentionally hit the cyclist intending to harm and kill. This is why they are being charged with murder. Assume the Hyundai case will be in federal court where they have rules and Hyundai will be represented by big firms who specialize in these type of cases. Case in point–the GM exploding side gas tank cases were eventually reversed and found in favor of GM when it was discovered there was doctored evidence of the tanks exploding in videos. Not a fan of Hyundai’s but they meet federal minimum standards. It is a cheap car.
(1) Hyundai knowingly fails to meet industry standard in theft protection; (2) criminals purposefully target Hyundais to steal; (3) the criminals here foreseeably target the known easy to steal Hyundai; (4) the criminals here foreseeably commit another criminal act and hit the cyclist.
Of course an UNforeseeable criminal act is an intervening superseding cause. But a FORESEEABLE criminal act is not an intervening superseding cause. Whether it was foreseeable that this car would be stolen and that these criminals would use it for other criminal acts is the question for the jury.
At one time Hondas particularly the Accord and Civic were the number one car to steal. Thieves would easily jimmy the locks and then hot wire the car or use a screw driver in the ignition. The anti theft devices are not so anti theft. They are easily defeated by experienced car thieves. The same technicians that put in stereos, GPS and DVD players know how to steal a car. Metro was handing out free steering wheel clubs if you have a Hyundai or an older Honda.. The problem now is even with the newer Hyundai’s they will break into them regardless even though they are harder to steal. But the damage is done to the car in spite of the fact they don’t get it.
1:05 PM – Genuinely interested, can you explain why you take issue with the lack of ability to apportion fault to a nonparty as it relates to this lawsuit?
Sure. My belief is that everyone should be responsible for their own share of fault. Something about due process and equal protection. If 2:47 PM is correct and the driver is a party this should take care of that issue. P attorney probably recognizes that even a Clark County jurist would find the driver a necessary party. However, I’ve seen numerous cases where the court decided that a joint tortfeasor was not a necessary party. I certainly understand that there may be situations in which joint and several liability may be necessary/appropriate (acting in concert for example). Re 1:28 PM, I’m certainly not a “plebe”. But I expect nothing more from a P PI attorney beyond jumping to conclusions in the complete absence of any factual support. I suspect you may not know what the word means. I doubt a plebe would come to such a conclusion that early in their career.
This is 2:08 — thank you for your explanation, I appreciated learning your point of view. I don’t fully disagree about fault/responsibility, but I was struck in this case by the Plaintiff’s attorney naming the intentional tortfeasors. That, in my opinion, undermined the case at the very onset per Cafe Moda and several liability.
Hyundai made a car that’s easy to steal. It is foreseeable that criminals will steal it, and it is foreseeable that criminals will do other criminal acts in the stolen car.
I’m not saying it’s air tight and a jury may or may not buy it. But I think it’s certainly colorable and worth putting to a jury.
Next time my home is burglarized I’m going to sue the window manufacturer because the glass wasn’t thick enough to stop a brick and it was foreseeable someone with criminal intent would try and enter through a broken window. How absurd. Are we going to blame a homeowner for getting robbed if they forget to lock their door? We need to stop blaming each other for the bad acts of people who have opted out of the social contract thereby increasing the costs of living on each other to cover for the bad acts of criminals. Time to get tough on crime again. I think conservatives in town are generally looney toons, but every time I see issues like bail reform or criminal justice reform from the left I know I can never back them either. They’re making the community worse for the rest of us from the safety of their gated communities and political fundraiser cocktail parties.
Your analogies suck and are not even close to making a salient point.
But, what if the car were not a Hyundai and not stolen outright, but the little felonious murdering shit’s parent Escalade that was taken without permission.
Tell me that the negligent parents would not be sued and forseeably liable.
Now THAT is a solid analogy and something that can be sold to a jury.
Take your unwarranted righteous and superfluous indignance and put it in your fucking pocket. Nobody GAF what you think.
I do small time PI cases as a part of my general practice, but its not my bread an butter. I do not advertise and strictly take cases from friends, family and by word of mouth.
But, I cannot tolerate soft arguments that make zero sense.
Nevada really had a great run of politicians in the 80s and 90s. Back when most people would say this was a better state. Now we’re governed by the people who out crazy the normal people in primaries.
firstivus maximus
People, please don’t respond to these even so much as downvoting. His whole purpose is for attention and to get a reaction. Don’t give him one. Maybe after 5 years or so of posting this with no reaction, he will finally tire of it.
accende ignem
Veni, Sancte Spiritus, reple tuorum corda fidelium
Irony
I support his dedication. I will do everything in my power to ensure he feels vindicated and continues to post. With firstivus maximus we stand!
Good on Terry Wike generally on challenging the OBC; however think about the Streisand Effect my man. You now have multiple federal decisions publishing and re-publishing your suspension from the practice of law. Stop. You made your point, but stop.
CHECK THIS OUT. WHO FEELS SORRY FOR TERRY????
Between the time the panel heard this matter and when it entered its written recommendation, this court suspended Wike for two years with all but the first three months stayed, for the same type of misconduct at issue in this matter. . . . Considering Wike’s substantial experience in the practice of law, his insistence that his misconduct is not serious, and his improper use of the new trust account while the same type SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (O) 1947A 2It is unclear why the panel did not consider this suspension in its written order. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (O) 1947А of improper use of his old trust account was being investigated, we conclude an actual suspension is warranted.
“Considering Wike’s substantial experience in the practice of law, his insistence that his misconduct is not serious, and his improper use of the new trust account while the same type of improper use of his old trust account was being investigated” says it all for me. Good luck the third go around.
2 suspensions. For using Trust account like personal checking account. And then telling the Bar he does not take it too seriously.
Yes but Wike beat up Hooge. The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
BK practitioners, what sanction, realistically, is the State Bar facing here? Will they get mercy or deference because they are the state bar?
My guess is the costs of the appeals to both the BAP and the 9th are a good benchmark. $50-75k, plus anything extra.
I have seen $10k sanctions on a creditor for sending a single certified letter.
Likely nominal…. the action was a violation of the discharge injunction but you can’t hold a creditor in contempt for a violation of the discharge if there is an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’ actions…in this case the state bar, might be lawful. Further, he did this pro se, so no fees.
The sanction should be Hooge not being bar counsel considering he just got sanctioned. Just throwing that out there. My feeling is that he’d consider this a very serious case of misconduct for anyone but himself.
Re: the 9th Circuit ruling on the Sun v. RJ. I’m not a transactional attorney, but wouldn’t the transactional attorneys involved in negotiating this joint operating agreement have been responsible for making sure that the law was complied with? (I.e., that the attorney general signed off on it?) Did the attorneys for the Sun who handled the joint operating agreement screw the pooch here? Please enlighten me, trans attorneys. Thx in advance.
In the Complaint against Hyundai, they allege claims for “prima facie tort.” I could not find any case in Nevada adopting that doctrine. Is anyone aware of such?
What a f ing BS lawsuit. This is one of those situations where the clients and attorneys need to face real exposure. Let’s see if one of the esteemed Clark County jurists has the ovaries/cajones to decide that an intentional act by two thieving, murderous POS is a superseding, intervening act. Oh yeah, f Nevada law for the inability of a defendant to name a nonparty at fault and have liability apportioned to them.
Knock it off, this is nothing new.
Yeah, that’s the problem. Nothing new about a complete BS lawsuit. The Nevada legislature and courts should be ashamed.
Nah. Look at the changes that Hyundai has done.
Its thin, but actionable.
Now go back and bill for your quota, you bitter ID plebe.
Question for those who do PI/ID: regardless of whatever changes Hyundai has made, how is there proximate cause?
2:04 PM–Hyundai liability. Hyundai knew that the failure to have antitheft devices and the failure to fix is unreasonably dangerous. However, the criminal acts of third parties–the defendants hitting the cyclist retired cop should cut off liability.The criminal acts of the defendants is an intervening superseding cause. End of story but this is Nevada where the rules go out the window.
Perhaps intervening superseding causation was beyond the Boyd syllabus?
3:11 Hyundai liability–Hyundai’s are easy to steal but the cause of the death was the intentional criminal act of two thugs who intentionally hit the cyclist intending to harm and kill. This is why they are being charged with murder. Assume the Hyundai case will be in federal court where they have rules and Hyundai will be represented by big firms who specialize in these type of cases. Case in point–the GM exploding side gas tank cases were eventually reversed and found in favor of GM when it was discovered there was doctored evidence of the tanks exploding in videos. Not a fan of Hyundai’s but they meet federal minimum standards. It is a cheap car.
(1) Hyundai knowingly fails to meet industry standard in theft protection; (2) criminals purposefully target Hyundais to steal; (3) the criminals here foreseeably target the known easy to steal Hyundai; (4) the criminals here foreseeably commit another criminal act and hit the cyclist.
Of course an UNforeseeable criminal act is an intervening superseding cause. But a FORESEEABLE criminal act is not an intervening superseding cause. Whether it was foreseeable that this car would be stolen and that these criminals would use it for other criminal acts is the question for the jury.
At one time Hondas particularly the Accord and Civic were the number one car to steal. Thieves would easily jimmy the locks and then hot wire the car or use a screw driver in the ignition. The anti theft devices are not so anti theft. They are easily defeated by experienced car thieves. The same technicians that put in stereos, GPS and DVD players know how to steal a car. Metro was handing out free steering wheel clubs if you have a Hyundai or an older Honda.. The problem now is even with the newer Hyundai’s they will break into them regardless even though they are harder to steal. But the damage is done to the car in spite of the fact they don’t get it.
Point of fact: firms who represent manufacturers like Hyundai don’t practice insurance defense, but directly rep the manufacturer.
Correct. They are not typically insurance defense firms.
1:05 PM – Genuinely interested, can you explain why you take issue with the lack of ability to apportion fault to a nonparty as it relates to this lawsuit?
Sure. My belief is that everyone should be responsible for their own share of fault. Something about due process and equal protection. If 2:47 PM is correct and the driver is a party this should take care of that issue. P attorney probably recognizes that even a Clark County jurist would find the driver a necessary party. However, I’ve seen numerous cases where the court decided that a joint tortfeasor was not a necessary party. I certainly understand that there may be situations in which joint and several liability may be necessary/appropriate (acting in concert for example). Re 1:28 PM, I’m certainly not a “plebe”. But I expect nothing more from a P PI attorney beyond jumping to conclusions in the complete absence of any factual support. I suspect you may not know what the word means. I doubt a plebe would come to such a conclusion that early in their career.
This is 2:08 — thank you for your explanation, I appreciated learning your point of view. I don’t fully disagree about fault/responsibility, but I was struck in this case by the Plaintiff’s attorney naming the intentional tortfeasors. That, in my opinion, undermined the case at the very onset per Cafe Moda and several liability.
You’re welcome.
The drivers are parties here. This feels like you lost a big case and now you are projecting.
Where is the foreseeabilty…
Hyundai made a car that’s easy to steal. It is foreseeable that criminals will steal it, and it is foreseeable that criminals will do other criminal acts in the stolen car.
I’m not saying it’s air tight and a jury may or may not buy it. But I think it’s certainly colorable and worth putting to a jury.
Next time my home is burglarized I’m going to sue the window manufacturer because the glass wasn’t thick enough to stop a brick and it was foreseeable someone with criminal intent would try and enter through a broken window. How absurd. Are we going to blame a homeowner for getting robbed if they forget to lock their door? We need to stop blaming each other for the bad acts of people who have opted out of the social contract thereby increasing the costs of living on each other to cover for the bad acts of criminals. Time to get tough on crime again. I think conservatives in town are generally looney toons, but every time I see issues like bail reform or criminal justice reform from the left I know I can never back them either. They’re making the community worse for the rest of us from the safety of their gated communities and political fundraiser cocktail parties.
Your analogies suck and are not even close to making a salient point.
But, what if the car were not a Hyundai and not stolen outright, but the little felonious murdering shit’s parent Escalade that was taken without permission.
Tell me that the negligent parents would not be sued and forseeably liable.
Now THAT is a solid analogy and something that can be sold to a jury.
Take your unwarranted righteous and superfluous indignance and put it in your fucking pocket. Nobody GAF what you think.
Tell me you’re a P PI pross without using the words P PI pross.
I do small time PI cases as a part of my general practice, but its not my bread an butter. I do not advertise and strictly take cases from friends, family and by word of mouth.
But, I cannot tolerate soft arguments that make zero sense.
what case is this?
Richard Bryan is such a Nevada icon. I wish there were more politicians like him.
Nevada really had a great run of politicians in the 80s and 90s. Back when most people would say this was a better state. Now we’re governed by the people who out crazy the normal people in primaries.