- Quickdraw McLaw
- 29 Comments
- 314 Views
Today we direct your attention to yesterday’s post at Compelling Discovery about whether experts who have had an adverse ruling concerning their testimony have standing to intervene. Give it a read and feel free to discuss your experiences with this below as well as anything else going on out there today.
So in which Court is Fazzini trying to intervene?
Why do you think of Fazzini? How about Duke intervening when he got stricken due to being found completely biased (aka defense whore #1).
Hopefully Fazzini is getting the help he so clearly needs.
Don't get your panties in a bunch, @ 9:11. We all know medical expert whore #1 is Kabins.
10:21, if you still think Kabins is the go to guy you are behind the times. While the defense bar uses the same 3-4 whores for nearly all their cases, Plaintiffs at least have 10-20 different doctors they use as experts.
Relax and stop drinking the Kool-aid. There are whores on both sides. Who cares?
What about that defense expert witness (don't recall his name) that was prohibited from testifying in front of Judge Williams' court (and, if I recall correctly, other courts as well) because he only testified for insurers and his reports were fairly similar across the board? Would that give standing to intervene?
That was Duke (see above), and no, because he is not subject to the underlying lawsuit. he is still just a witness
Well done, 9:09. Aside form the Williams reference, you've just described every personal injury doctor/expert (plaintiff or defense) in Vegas.
Defense counsel in the case involving Dr. Duke filed a writ. I spent a few hours reading the briefs yesterday. It sure is an interesting situation. I have a feeling the court denies the writ because it's moot (Defense had another doctor do the Rule 35 exam), but the Defense will file an appeal after the case is done.
As for the substance… I'm not sure if the NSC will ever rule that a doctor is too biased or too flawed to perform Rule 35 exams. But if they do, Dr. Duke seems like the obvious choice to make that mark.
This comment has been removed by the author.
*petition for a writ, duh.
Cadish Unseals 1 October Search Warrants
https://eighthjdcourt.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/judgecadishorder1_30_18.pdf
I just wish they would hurry up and come out with self-driving cars so all the PI lawyers, insurance defense lawyers, and medical experts can find something more productive to contribute to society.
You wish this because you are poor and your job sucks and you are stuck fantasizing about other people being miserable like you.
I have my own firm with steady clients. I am doing something productive. And I am rich in spirit. When low-impact rear-enders become a thing of the past, I hope you find something to do that is meaningful. Good luck to you.
savage^^^
I'm at an insurance defense firm and my name is on a lot of their pleadings. I'm leaving this job and not taking any files with me. Any suggestions on best way to remove my name from all of those—just a disassociation of counsel?
Yes, you can take steps to hopefully avoid your name being on future pleadings from the firm, but there is nothing you can really do about pleadings which are already filed which include your name.
Cadish unseals search warrants records for Paddock. It only took her 3 weeks, a month to make that decision. Impressive.
We get it. You don't like her. But man, whoever this is is just reaching now. Read the order. I did since it's only 3 pages. It outlines everything she reviewed after the 1/16 hearing (looks like a lot), and everything the court did including holding an additional closed hearing last Friday. Like as in two business days ago last Friday. Getting all that done in 2 weeks is fine. Not lightning fast, but a decision of this magnitude shouldn't be lightning fast either. Certainly nothing to complain about.
Your desperation is showing.
Yes, only one person dislikes Cadish. That is why there are numerous posts about her. LMFAO.
How dare you express your opinion about Cadish who is a judge.
6:39 no one said anyone cannot or should not express an opinion about a judge. The post pointed out that the specific criticism in 12:24's comment was, in that poster's view, was unjustified. Is there anything incorrect about what 5:03 said? If not, I agree with 5:03.
5:55 I know, right? It's not like one person could post several comments about the same thing. (And yes, I am also 7:47.)
We know you are. Your desperation keeps showimg of being Cadish. Give up.
Elissa Cadish has bigger problems than her detractors. She screwed up in unsealing those warrants. Read on.
Cadish is a good judge, but the way this warrant issue was handled raises serious concerns. Did you see how the Sun and many other news outlets DID NOT identify the "person of interest" ? Why is that? its b/c copies that they received had correctly redacted the name! If you look at the pleadings, the whole point of the motions and the hearing was to keep this name out of the public eye. Apparently Cadish insisted that her office would redact and distribute the docs. We docs that went to the RJ and the Associated press (Maggies clients?) DID NOT have the full redaction! I understand that when this first came out, approximately 1030 am there was a desperate attempt to clawback these copies, obviously without success. There was an emergency hearing on the issue yesterday afternoon and Cadish "apologized" for the "error" This error effectively mooted the entire proceedings. As a result, some poor guy in AZ has reporters camped on his lawn and is getting all manner of threats from uniformed fanatics. From what can be gathered from the reports, at best he is guilty of some illegal sale of ammunition. Nothing I have heard indicates he even knew the shooter. I assume that Metro knew this and thus the effort to conceal his name. If this was error, it certainly gives one pause about advancing Cadish to higher office.
Cadish is a bad judge.