Heat Standards

  • Law
  • Multi-million dollar truck crash lawsuit ends in mistrial. [CVN]
  • Nevada’s top election official eyes changes to speed up ballot counting. [TNI]
  • Nevada adopts heat standards, despite some industry push back. [Nevada Current]
  • Gambler appeals dismissal of lawsuit against Resorts World, its former boss. [RJ]
  • Poolside incident at Strip casino leads to lawsuit. [RJ]
administrator
38 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 9:29 am

What did the witness say or do that led to the mistrial?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 10:13 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Yeah what a stupid article. It leaves out the one piece of information that 99% of readers would have wanted to know when they went to read it.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
November 22, 2024 10:44 am
Reply to  Anonymous

It says that an order on a motion in limine was violated by a witness, but that’s it. Makes the article kind of uselss except as a teaser to subscribe to their paid service I guess.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 1:01 pm
Reply to  anonymous

I went to the court register to see if I could get more insight. There was no mention of the mistrial or the violation. Maybe court minutes are coming later.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 11:07 am

The heat standards article is depressing. Industry push back on not working your employees to death in 120 degree heat? Disgusting.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 11:20 am
Reply to  Anonymous

They’ve succeeded in some of the worst places (Texas and Florida) for heat and humidity. Dollars over lives wins again.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2024 7:27 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I worked a summer job once where I was in constant heat over 120. Drank lots of water. Some industries are hot.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 11:12 am

Small law firm. Your Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) registration is due NLT 12/31/24.
A fine example of career bureaucrats overreach of legislative intent.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 11:39 am
Reply to  Anonymous

It takes less than 10 minutes to take care of.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 2:32 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The BOIR is admittedly one of the worst rolled out government mandates in a long time. With that said, once you figure out what you need to do, it is cake. Without giving away all of the secret spices, our firm is making bank helping clients get these filed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 2:49 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Y’all miss the privacy issues. The statue was intended to trap large scale criminal money laundering. That is not you. You already report income to the IRS and maintain records of bank transactions and your IOLTA. It is next to impossible for a small firm to move large amounts of cash. Your FinCen detailed information is available to many federal and state agencies. Thousands of employees will have access.

More importantly, consider the information you already have given to government (IRS, Homeland, licensing, etc). Something more than 32 million business will have to report including such innocuous positions as volunteering as Board member for your HOA. This overreach is truly Orwellian.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 4:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The stupidest thing about this is that at least one Court has already found this to be unconstitutional. Does the government take the reasonable position that this should be put on hold until the appeal process is over? Nope. They actually took the position that it should be stayed only as to the named plaintiffs, a small business coalition in Louisiana. Classic government.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 7:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Adding to @4:03 comment, See US Supreme Court 2024 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Court’s deference to bureaucracy rule making espoused in Chevron was struck down. Said another way, federal agency cannot make up rules and avoid court scrutiny as they could after Chevron.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2024 1:11 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes, but the BOI reporting is directly required under a statute, not by regulation. The Corporate Transparency Act was enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. Chevron being overturned has little to do with this.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2024 3:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@1:11 I don’t think you understand about statutes and regulations. The legislative branch passes laws (statutes). The various agencies implements law by drafting regulations and rules. After Chevron, courts were bound to respect the regs and rules of the agency, regardless of how stupid. Federal agencies routinely draft regs that go beyond legislative intent. Now the agencies are subject to court review.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2024 4:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Thank you for explaining the difference between a statute a regulation. Can you tell me if the definition of a reporting company in 31 U.S.C. § 5336(a)(11) is a statute or a regulation?

Everyone is moaning about the rules, but it’s truly the statute people are complaining about. Go read 31 U.S.C. § 5336 and tell me what the regulations adopted thereunder did that is any more burdensome than Congress’s enactment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 12:05 pm

Question for non-civil attorneys. Who do you refer personal injury cases too? I’ve been referred what I think is a good case – liability is clear and damages are pretty significant. Nothing in the 7-figure range, but significant. I’ve done the analysis and I’d like to refer to a good personal injury attorney who I can trust to take care of the client and not try to screw me on the fee. Seeking recommendations.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 12:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

refer to a firm that gives high referrals and will litigate it if necessary. And has trial/verdict experience and success rate. and will definitely get you a fee split agreement at the time of sign up so you have your owed fee in writing. this are all things my firm does for referrals

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 12:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Who I would refer it to is not who I would recommend you refer it to. Reason? Because we have a personal and professional relationship that we have built over time. I get a good referral fee but its because I have polished the apple before I refer the case and we have that history. Build a relationship with a firm rather than hoping that a cold referral will be lucrative for you.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 1:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Sure this is great advice but it sounds like it’s raining now, so time for action is now. You might start with firms that are from around here, you know?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 2:38 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

My point was: don’t look for a cold referral because no PI firm is going to pay large referral fees to someone that they do not know. So I have a firm that I referred cases to who paid 20%, another paid 33% but now we have one that pays 40% of the fee for the referral. These percentages increase with familiarity and consistency.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 2:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agree with others–find someone you can build a relationship with and can trust and be sure you get a solid referral fee. To me the smaller local firms are always the way to go. I’d stay away from the firms based out-of-state (i.e. Morgan & Morgan, Sweet James, The Matian Firm), high volume/lower quality firms (i.e. Lerner & Rowe, Kutner & Associates, Bernstein & Associates), and heavy advertisers (i.e. Dimopoulis, Battleborn, Paul Powell, Naqvi) because (generally speaking) they: (1) won’t give your case and client the personal attention he/she deserves, (2) will try to churn and burn the case to turn it over as fast as possible, regardless of how low the settlement is, and (3) won’t have much local litigation experience to handle the case if it doesn’t settle prelit.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 2:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@2:01 OP here. Thanks for that advice. I’m trying to figure out who to refer to, but knowing who NOT to refer to is half the battle.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 8:39 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I have referred larger PI case for litigation to John Aldrich. Don’t hesitate. He is fair and keeps his word.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 8:58 am
Reply to  Anonymous

John is certainly a trustworthy person.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 4:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

It’s amazing how many non-lawyers can’t figure out what 2:01 is saying. It’s the same thing with many other industries like HVAC. The worst thing you can do when you have an HVAC problem is call one of the companies that advertises on TV.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 7:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

No lawyer refers clients to the advertisers or many of the firms mentioned. Clients find these firms from the advertisements. The only clients I hear about or hear from are unhappy clients who are snapped up by the advertisers. I just tell them “sorry I can’t help you…..” It did not used to be this way. Good cases would fall in my lap. No more it seems. So I wonder does the advertising work for the firms that do it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2024 2:27 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Refer to me bro!

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
November 22, 2024 4:16 pm

hypo: if a plaintiff recovers $20k at trial but fails to beat an $80k offer of judgment, can they still recover as the “prevailing party” under NRS 18.010?

Last edited 21 days ago by anonymous
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2024 1:07 pm
Reply to  anonymous

I’d say on a scale of 1-10, he’s fucked!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 23, 2024 1:39 pm
Reply to  anonymous

No but motion to retax is statutory so make sure you file it timely.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 8:42 am
Reply to  anonymous

Definitely not. I have seen more than one attorneys fee Motion under both Contract and NRS 18.010 be denied.

A smart judge enters a FFCL that “For purposes of this litigation, X is deemed the prevailing party”

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 8:59 am
Reply to  anonymous

Not a chance. So to be clear, Plaintiff is a “prevailing party” as that term is applied under NRS 18.010(2)(a) and NRS 18.020. But NRS 18.010(2)(a) is permissive for an award of fees, and I have never seen a judge reverse the policy bases under OoJ. You lost. You lost big.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
November 25, 2024 10:23 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Blarcom v. Luiere, 544 P.3d 257 (Nev. App. 2024)

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 11:25 am
Reply to  anonymous

VERY instructive lesson on making sure your OOJ is phrased appropriately. The defendant likely should have either revised the OOJ or submitted two (one with or one without fees). But Escobar sometimes made a huge hash of any complicated decisions. Great person, but not great on the complicated rulings.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
November 25, 2024 12:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This just seems absurd to me! 3 cents and somehow it still does not beat the $5k offer of judgement because we have to include pre offer costs and fees…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 12:48 pm
Reply to  anonymous

The entire text of that citation is “AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED IN PART. REMAND.” There’s a separate order: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5452795253470363294&q=BLARCOM+v.+LUIERE&hl=en&as_sdt=4,29

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 25, 2024 4:16 pm
Reply to  anonymous

Am I reading this right that this pre-offer attorney fees consideration under NRCP 68(g) only applies if the offeree (plaintiff here) winds up being entitled to attorney fees? That’s what the rule says – “and if attorney fees are permitted by law or contract, attorney fees, with the principal amount of the judgment.” But the basis for attorney fees is that plaintiff beat the OOJ, which plaintiff didn’t, no?

So is the rationale that if a defendant knows they’re going to owe attorney fees pre-OOJ (but again, if the attorney fees would only be via beating an OOJ then the way I read 68(g) that shouldn’t be factored in) can’t offer 50% of accrued attorney fees knowing that the eventual judgment won’t be that high?