Cities of North Las Vegas and Henderson file petition challenging CCSD policy limiting nonvoting trustees. [Fox5Vegas; TNI]
ACLU: Some agencies not complying with law to allow voting in Nevada jails. [TNI]
“I’m begging the courts to stop citing my work.” Journalist who has written against the quackery of forensic bite mark matching is frustrated with the Nevada Supreme Court’s citation of his work. [The Atlantic]
A little late on this non-Vegas story, but for those of you interested in statutory construction and grammar, you should check out this U.S. Supreme Court decision. [SCOTUS blog]
Former Justice Breyer has been on the talkshow circuit for his new book on interpretation and discussed an unnamed case (Pulsipher) that spent 30 pages arguing for the meaning of “and” one way and then 30 pages arguing for a definition of “and” in the dissent.
Also interesting how the split came down. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2024 9:59 am
When did Jolley Urga shut down? Did Gardner Jolley retire? I never saw anybody better at deftly delivering back handed compliments, the man had a real gift.
Roger Wirth passed away a few years ago, and the rest of those guys must be well into their 70’s if not pushing 80 by now. It didn’t seem that there was a younger generation waiting to take over, and my impression is that the economics of operating a 10-20 lawyer general civil practice firm are getting kind of difficult. Can’t compete with the big multi-state guys, or with the solo running on a shoestring.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2024 9:59 am
Can anyone shed any light on why we’re required to enter our emails to download docs from e-service now? I know there was discussion about it when it first happened, but I can’t remember if anyone knew why they were doing to that now.
Asks me 100% of the time. The answer to the question above regarding access to publicly filed documents is that those documents are publicly available if you (a) go to the courthouse or (b) pay for access. This is why you will periodically see on a file “Public Copy Request” which is a service that is trying to get served with pleadings and get acccess by simply signing up for electronic service.
Its more likely to prevent bots from getting access. If you forward one of your tylerhost emails to someone, all they have to do it input YOUR email address and they can access the documents.
You can if you have a paid account. If you do not have a paid account (or pay by the document) you cannot download documents. This is the whole debate about UniCourt selling documents that Tyler Technologies and EJDC are also selling.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2024 10:25 am
If you haven’t already read it, I highly recommend reading Radley Balko’s “The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist.”
The book focuses on bite mark “science” and autopsies in criminal matters, but the book really highlights the true quackery of “experts” in all of the legal field. We all know this is true. The “experts” we hire in various civil settings are just prostitutes with credentials. We pay them and they render an opinion we want, then reverse engineer the conclusion. It’s a terrible system.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2024 3:30 pm
Have any of you research claim preclusion and issue preclusion lately? I cited Five Star v. Ruby in a brief recently and got hit with 2 new NSC cases (well sort of new) that appear to destroy res judicata as we knew it. If you have not looked lately, do not reflexively cite Five Star because it appears that it is not necessarily inclusive of the law anymore.
Look at Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Sfr Invs. Pool 1, 2022 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 663 (2022). Says final judgment is not really preclusive so long as new action alleges one additional fact not named in the earlier action.
Would I be correct in assuming the “one additional fact” needs to have been uncovered after the first final judgement was entered? Seems like an open invitation to artfully plead complaints otherwise.
Mandatory minimums were so successful in saving lives and increasing community safety we can be sure Congress will find a way to gut it. Grammar matters.
Completely disagree.
Mandatory minimums unfairly apply an arbitrary standard to crimes without regard to circumstances, mitigating and aggravating factors. Justice is more than fairly served by 18 USC Sect. 3553 and the Sentencing Commission guidelines.
Judges need to be empowered to do their jobs in sentencing the convicted. Not the legislature.
Legislature writes the law, judges enforce it. What evidence is there that some unelected article III judge with zero accountability will not abuse his power. Answer: zero.
As for the purpose of the criminal code, it should not be to punish but to protect. Look at how El Salvador became safe almost overnight by adopting Pareto’s law: find the small number of bad guys who commit 90% of the crime, and lock them up. Voila! Women can walk the streets in the evening again.
I am all about locking up violent felons. However, mandatory minimums (especially for non violent offenses) tie the hands of the fact finder vis a vis sentencing (the judge). Of course, judges abuse discretion every day.
But they have the power to deviate up or down as the facts imply. Mandatory minimums eliminate that discretion and tie the arbiters hands and do not allow them to demonstrate leniency, even when its warranted.
Your El Salvador comparison is apples and oranges. . . . . and they didnt use mandatory minimums, just locked up the violent criminals and started enforcing the laws already in place.
Former Justice Breyer has been on the talkshow circuit for his new book on interpretation and discussed an unnamed case (Pulsipher) that spent 30 pages arguing for the meaning of “and” one way and then 30 pages arguing for a definition of “and” in the dissent.
Also interesting how the split came down. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined.
When did Jolley Urga shut down? Did Gardner Jolley retire? I never saw anybody better at deftly delivering back handed compliments, the man had a real gift.
Gardner Jolley and Bill Urga both now appear on the Hutchison Steffan web page. No idea how much work they’re doing.
They are both still working, although not at the pace that they used to maintain at JUWW.
Roger Wirth passed away a few years ago, and the rest of those guys must be well into their 70’s if not pushing 80 by now. It didn’t seem that there was a younger generation waiting to take over, and my impression is that the economics of operating a 10-20 lawyer general civil practice firm are getting kind of difficult. Can’t compete with the big multi-state guys, or with the solo running on a shoestring.
Can anyone shed any light on why we’re required to enter our emails to download docs from e-service now? I know there was discussion about it when it first happened, but I can’t remember if anyone knew why they were doing to that now.
Security to make sure that the people who are getting documents are actually allowed to get the documents.
Can’t have the filthy plebes getting access to publicly filed documents.
How is sending an email with the link and answer any type of security? And about 1/3 of the time it doesn’t ask.
Asks me 100% of the time. The answer to the question above regarding access to publicly filed documents is that those documents are publicly available if you (a) go to the courthouse or (b) pay for access. This is why you will periodically see on a file “Public Copy Request” which is a service that is trying to get served with pleadings and get acccess by simply signing up for electronic service.
Its more likely to prevent bots from getting access. If you forward one of your tylerhost emails to someone, all they have to do it input YOUR email address and they can access the documents.
Makes no sense. You can go on Odyssey and download the documents without any verification if you know the case number.
You can if you have a paid account. If you do not have a paid account (or pay by the document) you cannot download documents. This is the whole debate about UniCourt selling documents that Tyler Technologies and EJDC are also selling.
If you haven’t already read it, I highly recommend reading Radley Balko’s “The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist.”
The book focuses on bite mark “science” and autopsies in criminal matters, but the book really highlights the true quackery of “experts” in all of the legal field. We all know this is true. The “experts” we hire in various civil settings are just prostitutes with credentials. We pay them and they render an opinion we want, then reverse engineer the conclusion. It’s a terrible system.
Have any of you research claim preclusion and issue preclusion lately? I cited Five Star v. Ruby in a brief recently and got hit with 2 new NSC cases (well sort of new) that appear to destroy res judicata as we knew it. If you have not looked lately, do not reflexively cite Five Star because it appears that it is not necessarily inclusive of the law anymore.
Look at Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Sfr Invs. Pool 1, 2022 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 663 (2022). Says final judgment is not really preclusive so long as new action alleges one additional fact not named in the earlier action.
Would I be correct in assuming the “one additional fact” needs to have been uncovered after the first final judgement was entered? Seems like an open invitation to artfully plead complaints otherwise.
You would not be correct.
Mandatory minimums were so successful in saving lives and increasing community safety we can be sure Congress will find a way to gut it. Grammar matters.
Completely disagree.
Mandatory minimums unfairly apply an arbitrary standard to crimes without regard to circumstances, mitigating and aggravating factors. Justice is more than fairly served by 18 USC Sect. 3553 and the Sentencing Commission guidelines.
Judges need to be empowered to do their jobs in sentencing the convicted. Not the legislature.
Legislature writes the law, judges enforce it. What evidence is there that some unelected article III judge with zero accountability will not abuse his power. Answer: zero.
As for the purpose of the criminal code, it should not be to punish but to protect. Look at how El Salvador became safe almost overnight by adopting Pareto’s law: find the small number of bad guys who commit 90% of the crime, and lock them up. Voila! Women can walk the streets in the evening again.
I am all about locking up violent felons. However, mandatory minimums (especially for non violent offenses) tie the hands of the fact finder vis a vis sentencing (the judge). Of course, judges abuse discretion every day.
But they have the power to deviate up or down as the facts imply. Mandatory minimums eliminate that discretion and tie the arbiters hands and do not allow them to demonstrate leniency, even when its warranted.
Your El Salvador comparison is apples and oranges. . . . . and they didnt use mandatory minimums, just locked up the violent criminals and started enforcing the laws already in place.