Yesterday I posted in thread about Harry Reid. Coincidentally, I saw on the news last night that Mr. Reid has pancreatic cancer. My comments were rough. Although my views have not changed, I wish him well.
Guest
Anonymous
December 15, 2021 6:37 pm
What agency do you report election law violations? Thank you.
@11:48
Yes, of course. and your next PI case is going to make you a millionaire. Please share what you are smoking. Thank you.
Guest
Anonymous
December 15, 2021 10:09 pm
Looking for some anonymous advice from my colleagues re: a *purely hypothetical* scenario.
P intends to sue D1, but instead sues D2, an entity with nearly identical name to D1 but totally unrelated. D2 is served, but D1 is not. P gets a default judgment against D2 and then tries to collect on D1. This is D1's first notice of the suit. As a courtesy, D1 lets P know that the wrong D was sued. Does D1 have any other obligation? Can D1 just ignore the suit completely, or does D1 have to (for example) get the judgment set aside and request that the complaint be amended to name the correct entity?
Based on zero research, I think D1 can wait and hope the SOL will run. If this were my case I'd do a Westlaw search though just to be sure. P's lawyer might be totally fucked here – like D2 might get sanctions, client might have malpractice suit. Makes me cringe.
D1 should file an exemption to whatever execution P is attempting to do. D1 has no further obligations to do anything because under Callie v. Bowling the judgment cannot be amended after the fact on these facts. Other than objecting to execution, D1 is not even really a party to the action to attempt to have anything set aside.
D2 should get off of its butt and get this set aside(unless D2 is out of business and really does not care).
Disagree. Callie v Bowling concerned the addition of a third party under an alter ego theory. Here, it sounds as if this would be a correction. Also did D1 give rise to the incrrect name (Ie says his name is Jay Smith, when really its Jason). When did D1 advise P? Before the default judgment? If I am P i will be amending the judgment ASAP. If Defendant i would absolutely be very cautious
5:45 you can't get a judgment amended to include a party that was never properly named or served. If D1 had been SERVED with a complaint that had the entity identified as something close but not 100% accurate, then maybe. But not when D1 was never served.
Agree with 2:30 — From the facts of this case, D1 has yet to be sued by P, and if SOL has run, P is SOL (in a different sense). In such case, though, P's lawyer could be USC WOAP.
How much more truthful for the coroner to have said she was burned alive. The use of "thermal" is an example of the trend by government in all categories to describe something, an event or consequence, by some other name that obscures the common language usage.
Someone asked me the other day if I would ever consider running for judge. My first response was, "I'm the wrong gender." (I wouldn't run even if I was a female).
Welcome to understanding how most women felt the VAST majority of their career. Kinda sucks when you feel like your gender is holding you back in your career huh?
8:13AM–Can you be more specific? I have been in Nevada since 1997, and I do not believe that women were being held back either being appointed or elected as a judge in Clark County. In fact, the consensus is that women have a 5% advantage with the voters. Now if you are speaking in general terms regarding the legal field and earning partnership at a law firm, I would have to agree with your argument.
8:13 here- I agree that for women have had an advantage with voters for the last 10 or so years, but can't speak to before that. But I was speaking in more general terms to how many women have felt (probably rightfully so) that their gender was a detriment to their career, and not just in the legal field. I think this is true in most professional fields.
Guest
Anonymous
December 16, 2021 6:16 pm
The female advantage with voters may be only 5% in many political races, but in judicial races(where most voters know little of nothing about the candidates) the advantage is much higher than that, as we saw in 2020.
I'm male, and as 8:13 indicates, how do we feel now that the shoe is on the other foot
On that note, yes the pendulum swings, and sometimes dramatically. It is currently a huge advantage to be a woman in judicial races. But when I arrived in town way back in 1985, there were very few woman in the legal profession and it appears they had it quite rough. There were a lot of older, condescending male attorneys, who constantly called female attorneys "little lady"(or far worse) to their face, and were quite dismissive, and sometimes abusive, when negotiating with female attorneys.
Younger male attorney did not seem to generally behave that way, but many middle-aged and older male attorneys were, well, kind of brutal at times.
And they even often behaved that way in open court, and the older male judges would not correct or admonish them.
Remember Judge Mendoza? He'd require female attorneys to show their bar cards to prove they were lawyers, and he required them to wear dresses, pantsuits were forbidden.
10:27–and that's just the tip of the iceberg about how difficult he could be.
When he passed he was lauded as a great hero and reformer in the area of Juvenile Law, including CASA(Court Appointed Special Advocate, to assist
children in the system).
And that's great. He presumably deserves all the credit and accolades he received in this area.
But, sadly, when he passed the main reaction of most of the attorneys who practiced so much before him over the years, was how un-necessarily harsh he was as a jurist.
So, it always pays to have a respectful judicial demeanor and to treat lawyers decently. Most of our current crop of judges understand that…but not all.
Yesterday I posted in thread about Harry Reid. Coincidentally, I saw on the news last night that Mr. Reid has pancreatic cancer. My comments were rough. Although my views have not changed, I wish him well.
What agency do you report election law violations? Thank you.
Nevada Secretary of State: nvelect@sos.nv.gov. Go to https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/election-information/resources/report-potential-election-law-violation
Thank you for the rationale responder.
Not 11:41, but advise when it was?
@11:48
Yes, of course. and your next PI case is going to make you a millionaire. Please share what you are smoking. Thank you.
Looking for some anonymous advice from my colleagues re: a *purely hypothetical* scenario.
P intends to sue D1, but instead sues D2, an entity with nearly identical name to D1 but totally unrelated. D2 is served, but D1 is not. P gets a default judgment against D2 and then tries to collect on D1. This is D1's first notice of the suit. As a courtesy, D1 lets P know that the wrong D was sued. Does D1 have any other obligation? Can D1 just ignore the suit completely, or does D1 have to (for example) get the judgment set aside and request that the complaint be amended to name the correct entity?
Based on zero research, I think D1 can wait and hope the SOL will run. If this were my case I'd do a Westlaw search though just to be sure. P's lawyer might be totally fucked here – like D2 might get sanctions, client might have malpractice suit. Makes me cringe.
D1 should file an exemption to whatever execution P is attempting to do. D1 has no further obligations to do anything because under Callie v. Bowling the judgment cannot be amended after the fact on these facts. Other than objecting to execution, D1 is not even really a party to the action to attempt to have anything set aside.
D2 should get off of its butt and get this set aside(unless D2 is out of business and really does not care).
Disagree. Callie v Bowling concerned the addition of a third party under an alter ego theory. Here, it sounds as if this would be a correction. Also did D1 give rise to the incrrect name (Ie says his name is Jay Smith, when really its Jason). When did D1 advise P? Before the default judgment? If I am P i will be amending the judgment ASAP. If Defendant i would absolutely be very cautious
5:45 you can't get a judgment amended to include a party that was never properly named or served. If D1 had been SERVED with a complaint that had the entity identified as something close but not 100% accurate, then maybe. But not when D1 was never served.
Agree with 2:30 — From the facts of this case, D1 has yet to be sued by P, and if SOL has run, P is SOL (in a different sense). In such case, though, P's lawyer could be USC WOAP.
That Cardi B song?
Yeah I don't think D1 has any obligation. It wasn't sued or served. The judgment isn't against it.
Thermal injuries = She was burned alive
Pain from third degree burns is unbelievable. Imagine this poor woman's last moments.
How much more truthful for the coroner to have said she was burned alive. The use of "thermal" is an example of the trend by government in all categories to describe something, an event or consequence, by some other name that obscures the common language usage.
This bothered me too. She was burned alive. It was horrific. Just tell the truth. Sanitizing the language doesn't change what happened.
Gov. Sisolak just appointed Ellie Roohani to Dept.11 vacancy.
Someone asked me the other day if I would ever consider running for judge. My first response was, "I'm the wrong gender." (I wouldn't run even if I was a female).
Welcome to understanding how most women felt the VAST majority of their career. Kinda sucks when you feel like your gender is holding you back in your career huh?
8:13AM–Can you be more specific? I have been in Nevada since 1997, and I do not believe that women were being held back either being appointed or elected as a judge in Clark County. In fact, the consensus is that women have a 5% advantage with the voters. Now if you are speaking in general terms regarding the legal field and earning partnership at a law firm, I would have to agree with your argument.
8:13 here- I agree that for women have had an advantage with voters for the last 10 or so years, but can't speak to before that. But I was speaking in more general terms to how many women have felt (probably rightfully so) that their gender was a detriment to their career, and not just in the legal field. I think this is true in most professional fields.
The female advantage with voters may be only 5% in many political races, but in judicial races(where most voters know little of nothing about the candidates) the advantage is much higher than that, as we saw in 2020.
I'm male, and as 8:13 indicates, how do we feel now that the shoe is on the other foot
On that note, yes the pendulum swings, and sometimes dramatically. It is currently a huge advantage to be a woman in judicial races. But when I arrived in town way back in 1985, there were very few woman in the legal profession and it appears they had it quite rough. There were a lot of older, condescending male attorneys, who constantly called female attorneys "little lady"(or far worse) to their face, and were quite dismissive, and sometimes abusive, when negotiating with female attorneys.
Younger male attorney did not seem to generally behave that way, but many middle-aged and older male attorneys were, well, kind of brutal at times.
And they even often behaved that way in open court, and the older male judges would not correct or admonish them.
Remember Judge Mendoza? He'd require female attorneys to show their bar cards to prove they were lawyers, and he required them to wear dresses, pantsuits were forbidden.
Not much better for female lawyers.
Mendoza called me "Bill Terry's secretary."
10:27–and that's just the tip of the iceberg about how difficult he could be.
When he passed he was lauded as a great hero and reformer in the area of Juvenile Law, including CASA(Court Appointed Special Advocate, to assist
children in the system).
And that's great. He presumably deserves all the credit and accolades he received in this area.
But, sadly, when he passed the main reaction of most of the attorneys who practiced so much before him over the years, was how un-necessarily harsh he was as a jurist.
So, it always pays to have a respectful judicial demeanor and to treat lawyers decently. Most of our current crop of judges understand that…but not all.