Man charged with 20 counts of violating Nevada’s revenge porn laws ultimately accepted a plea deal for attempted unlawful dissemination of a personal image and one year probation; meanwhile, his ex-girlfriend continues to suffer the consequences. [8NewsNow]
CCSD teachers are getting a bump in their salary; meanwhile, no word on the status of the superintendent’s attempt to get money from the district for firing him and then rehiring him. [TNI]
Oh no, a crack down on unlicensed Elvis impersonators? [8NewsNow; RJ]
Nevada gaming regulators call cryptocurrency a “complex” topic. [TNI]
Not saying it is right but it is a logical consequence of abolishing slut-shaming i.e., if you have the values that lead to meeting someone online, engaging in this behavior, how do you complain when the natural consequences arise. Play stupid games – win stupid prizes.
"Natural consequences"? Sure same way providing your entire medical history to your doctor one should expect that the "natural consequences" are that all of your personal information gets out on the internet. Precisely what in this story indicated that this women consented to having her pictures taken let alone broadcast on the internet let alone led her to being branded a "slut".
I'm very sure someone at some time held a gun to her head and said "hey, you have to go on the internet and try to find some wealthy guy to show you a good time." You know, because that always happens. Otherwise, she'd have been looking for a nice guy at church.
10:55 did the strange sexual crazy man on the internet from the place known for crazy people take the same oath and become subject to the same laws as a Dr? No
Touché guess if you consent to having a little kinky side, you should accept being punished in public without consent… my bad I meant douche
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2022 6:07 pm
10:49, on someone dying in a car crash:
"Not saying it is right but it is a logical consequence of driving i.e., if you drive in a car, engaging in this behavior, how do you complain when the natural consequences arise. Play stupid games – win stupid prizes."
Yes, she won on one of her three counterclaims, for two million. So, with him winning fifteen million, he's ahead of the game by thirteen million. And Heard's net worth has been reported as being two million, so it's a real difficult situation for her. I doubt producers will be knocking her door down to offer her juicy, high-profile roles. Many people believe she appropriated and exploited the pain and plight of truly battered women.
@857. Read the comment from 552 above. None of the damages are dischargeable, not only the puni's, because malicious intent is an element of the underlying damages giving rise to the puni's.
Of course, if she files BK, Depp will have to pursue the Nondischargeability of the debt in a Adversary Proceeding and try portions of the case all over again. See also 11 U.S. Code §523(a)(6).
@9:09a – With the decision being determined through a contested trial and not a default, if Heard files BK, normally Depp could file the adversary and file an MSJ referencing the findings & conclusions and the BK judge would give deference to the state court decision. However, being a jury trial, does California require findings of fact & conclusions of law, or something similar that could be depended on? It would be such a waste of judicial resources to have to go through this BS again if she files BK.
I don't think Depp will have to retry the nondischageability. He has a judgment on the merits regarding the elements under §523(a)(6). That would look like a claim preclusion summary judgment.
@909 here. It wouldn't be a full trial all over again. Just "trial-lite" on the Original Judgment in light of the elements of 523(a)(6).MSJ likely punted to evidentiary hearing/trial. That's why I said "portions". The BK Judge will likely give hard deference to the Trial Court factual findings.
"Malicious intent" is not an element of a defamation claim against a public figure. "Actual malice" is. And from a quick look at 4th Cir. law it looks like actual malice only gets you to nondischargeability if you plead and prove knowledge and omit the possibility of recklessness.
@1259(06/01) – 117(06/02)
Tell me that you are a banal lawyer with way too much time on your hands, without telling me that you are a banal lawyer with too much time on your hands.
I don't really understand the comment because your use of "banal" is inventive, but sometimes, courts give words defined meaning in law. These are called "terms of art," and a term of art's meaning might be different from a layperson's dictionary definition understanding. Even more confusingly for many nonlawyers, these meanings can vary by context even within the law. Here, "actual malice" is a term of art that means knowledge the statement is false or reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement. It has a completely different meaning than "malicious" does in reference to 523(a)(6) dischargeability. Confusing, I know! That's why people pay lawyers so much. As for too much time on my hands, I can see why you would think that! But actually, lawyers are generally pretty good at this sort of thing. Here, this took me 5 minutes to figure out because I already had a minimal understanding of the relevant law.
If you didn't watch to the end of the verdict, or if the news hasn't been updated, the punitive damages were reduced to the statutory cap of $350K. So, it's $10M and $350K to him, with $2M compensatory to her.
OP back, wait, I think I answered my own question, he lost that chance by not including them in the original suit, some kind of preclusion right?, I do Franchise Contracts and trying to remember that from law school
It's actually not a compulsory joinder. It would be a separate case against the Post. Not sure if he has a claim because her piece was an opinion piece – not affiliated with the Post.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2022 10:05 pm
NSC removes Judge Nadia Krall from a pending case. It is rare for an appellate court to remove a judge where there had not been a prior motion to recuse in the trial court.
Judge Krall campaigned on speedy justice, and it has been her MO on the bench. She has a practice of ruling on motions before replies are on file, and she moves her docket quickly. Right, wrong, or otherwise, she ultimately has to answer to the Nevada Supreme Court for doing so. This appears to be the first instance of their opinion on those judicial habits.
Maybe defense counsel should stop hiding evidence again and again and again. Some Judges are getting tired of the bullshit pulled by counsel and claims they looked for stuff, but couldn’t find an insurance policy or medical records or the “video” is missing.
"Speedy justice"– in this case reaching conclusions before an evidentiary hearing was even conducted.
'We conclude that reassignment is warranted. The district court
set an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual issues related to Bellavance's
sanctions motion based on CHH's alleged discovery abuses….But the record shows that, before taking evidence on these issues, the district court concluded that Bundick had misrepresented to the court both when he became involved in the case and that CHH's insurance disclosures in other cases would show that CHH generally complied with discovery rules. The court called these statements 'false' and stated defense counsel was not 'fully honest with the court or opposing counsel.'"
Krall should have held the hearing but every Judge and people make conclusions quickly before hearing everything. These discovery issues are commonplace now. That is the bigger issue.
Hold the hearing, listen to the testimony and argument from both sides, and then go ahead and make the same ruling that you were going to make anyway if that's what you want to do, but don't fail to make an appellate-proof record first!
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2022 11:01 pm
The Depp v. Heard case is interesting to me for two reasons. First, it pits the rubes (juries) against the robes (judges). The rubes in VA found Jonny more charming and believable, and the robes in the UK (trial and appeal) found otherwise. In this town, the plaintiffs' lawyers have done it right. They don't choose between the rubes and robes. They manipulate the ever dumbening rubes here, like Depp did, with parlor tricks, personality, and appeals to passion (this is no judgment on whether Depp or Heard was more truthful, only which was more effective), and they secure the robes through campaign donations.
The second interesting issue, is the inapplicability of defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel in VA, which applies in some states, and in the Ninth Circuit. The doctrine might well have barred Depp's suit in Nevada and federal court. I wonder if that (in addition to VA's weaker Anti-SLAPP laws) was a significant consideration in filing suit in VA.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2022 11:39 pm
4:01 I'm the Franchise guy who posted earlier. What is "defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel" – serious question
"The Ninth Circuit has recognized the validity of defensive , nonmutual collateral estoppel, where a defendant precludes a plaintiff from relitigating an issue that the plaintiff had previously litigated unsuccessfully against a different party." State of Idaho Potato Com'n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 713 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005).
In the Depp case it means that because Depp sued the Sun, and lost, after they called him a wife beater, he could have been barred from re-litigating the issue of whether he was a wife beater. There may be some issues over whether the issues were the same – a court might find the published allegations of abuse were too different.
Not saying it is right but it is a logical consequence of abolishing slut-shaming i.e., if you have the values that lead to meeting someone online, engaging in this behavior, how do you complain when the natural consequences arise. Play stupid games – win stupid prizes.
"Natural consequences"? Sure same way providing your entire medical history to your doctor one should expect that the "natural consequences" are that all of your personal information gets out on the internet. Precisely what in this story indicated that this women consented to having her pictures taken let alone broadcast on the internet let alone led her to being branded a "slut".
I'm very sure someone at some time held a gun to her head and said "hey, you have to go on the internet and try to find some wealthy guy to show you a good time." You know, because that always happens. Otherwise, she'd have been looking for a nice guy at church.
They met on a dating site and dated for months. There is no evidence of her seeking out "some wealthy guy to show you a good time."
10:55 did the strange sexual crazy man on the internet from the place known for crazy people take the same oath and become subject to the same laws as a Dr? No
@1055 The story actually said: "[She] consented to photographs and videos to be taken of her and Donald during sexual intercourse.”
Touché guess if you consent to having a little kinky side, you should accept being punished in public without consent… my bad I meant douche
10:49, on someone dying in a car crash:
"Not saying it is right but it is a logical consequence of driving i.e., if you drive in a car, engaging in this behavior, how do you complain when the natural consequences arise. Play stupid games – win stupid prizes."
11:07 let me fix that for you – " … the logical consequence of driving like a maniac in unsafe conditions knowing that a wreck is imminent … "
Depp/Heard: Verdict award compensatories of $10MM. Punitives of $5MM
Heard's Counterclaim: Denied
Sorry $15MM Depp against heard on the first-party claims. Heard against Depp: $2MM on the counterclaim.
Yes, she won on one of her three counterclaims, for two million. So, with him winning fifteen million, he's ahead of the game by thirteen million. And Heard's net worth has been reported as being two million, so it's a real difficult situation for her. I doubt producers will be knocking her door down to offer her juicy, high-profile roles. Many people believe she appropriated and exploited the pain and plight of truly battered women.
Dischargeable in bankruptcy? With the punitives it is presumabily intentional and malicious injury.
Presumably? Malicious intent is an element of defamation because Depp is a public figure. So yes, nondischargeable.
punitives got reduced to $350 per Virginia law, so bankrupty looks like an option
@857. Read the comment from 552 above. None of the damages are dischargeable, not only the puni's, because malicious intent is an element of the underlying damages giving rise to the puni's.
Of course, if she files BK, Depp will have to pursue the Nondischargeability of the debt in a Adversary Proceeding and try portions of the case all over again. See also 11 U.S. Code §523(a)(6).
What ever happened to the BK Hottie??
@9:09a – With the decision being determined through a contested trial and not a default, if Heard files BK, normally Depp could file the adversary and file an MSJ referencing the findings & conclusions and the BK judge would give deference to the state court decision. However, being a jury trial, does California require findings of fact & conclusions of law, or something similar that could be depended on? It would be such a waste of judicial resources to have to go through this BS again if she files BK.
I don't think Depp will have to retry the nondischageability. He has a judgment on the merits regarding the elements under §523(a)(6). That would look like a claim preclusion summary judgment.
@909 here. It wouldn't be a full trial all over again. Just "trial-lite" on the Original Judgment in light of the elements of 523(a)(6).MSJ likely punted to evidentiary hearing/trial. That's why I said "portions". The BK Judge will likely give hard deference to the Trial Court factual findings.
"Malicious intent" is not an element of a defamation claim against a public figure. "Actual malice" is. And from a quick look at 4th Cir. law it looks like actual malice only gets you to nondischargeability if you plead and prove knowledge and omit the possibility of recklessness.
@1259(06/01) – 117(06/02)
Tell me that you are a banal lawyer with way too much time on your hands, without telling me that you are a banal lawyer with too much time on your hands.
I don't really understand the comment because your use of "banal" is inventive, but sometimes, courts give words defined meaning in law. These are called "terms of art," and a term of art's meaning might be different from a layperson's dictionary definition understanding. Even more confusingly for many nonlawyers, these meanings can vary by context even within the law. Here, "actual malice" is a term of art that means knowledge the statement is false or reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement. It has a completely different meaning than "malicious" does in reference to 523(a)(6) dischargeability. Confusing, I know! That's why people pay lawyers so much. As for too much time on my hands, I can see why you would think that! But actually, lawyers are generally pretty good at this sort of thing. Here, this took me 5 minutes to figure out because I already had a minimal understanding of the relevant law.
You win.
If you didn't watch to the end of the verdict, or if the news hasn't been updated, the punitive damages were reduced to the statutory cap of $350K. So, it's $10M and $350K to him, with $2M compensatory to her.
After offsets, $8MM net to him. Both of them come out covered in feces.
12:58 Amber is the only one who has been playing with feces i.e., "Amber Turd"
Knowing nothing of defamation cases, I ask: can Depp go back and sue the Washington Post for publishing Heard's article?
OP back, wait, I think I answered my own question, he lost that chance by not including them in the original suit, some kind of preclusion right?, I do Franchise Contracts and trying to remember that from law school
It's actually not a compulsory joinder. It would be a separate case against the Post. Not sure if he has a claim because her piece was an opinion piece – not affiliated with the Post.
NSC removes Judge Nadia Krall from a pending case. It is rare for an appellate court to remove a judge where there had not been a prior motion to recuse in the trial court.
https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=63463
Wow. That almost never happens.
Woof. This one is interesting!! And actually helps me a great deal on a case I am working on currently. THANKS for sharing!
she is not a good judge.
I had her as an arbitrator once, and found her to be extraordinarily fair.
Vol 7 of the appendix has a hearing transcript. Seems like one side was favored but draw your own conclusion.
I have her on a couple of cases and she is a big glass of beer: Brew Tall.
Judge Krall campaigned on speedy justice, and it has been her MO on the bench. She has a practice of ruling on motions before replies are on file, and she moves her docket quickly. Right, wrong, or otherwise, she ultimately has to answer to the Nevada Supreme Court for doing so. This appears to be the first instance of their opinion on those judicial habits.
Maybe defense counsel should stop hiding evidence again and again and again. Some Judges are getting tired of the bullshit pulled by counsel and claims they looked for stuff, but couldn’t find an insurance policy or medical records or the “video” is missing.
"Speedy justice"– in this case reaching conclusions before an evidentiary hearing was even conducted.
'We conclude that reassignment is warranted. The district court
set an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual issues related to Bellavance's
sanctions motion based on CHH's alleged discovery abuses….But the record shows that, before taking evidence on these issues, the district court concluded that Bundick had misrepresented to the court both when he became involved in the case and that CHH's insurance disclosures in other cases would show that CHH generally complied with discovery rules. The court called these statements 'false' and stated defense counsel was not 'fully honest with the court or opposing counsel.'"
Krall should have held the hearing but every Judge and people make conclusions quickly before hearing everything. These discovery issues are commonplace now. That is the bigger issue.
Hold the hearing, listen to the testimony and argument from both sides, and then go ahead and make the same ruling that you were going to make anyway if that's what you want to do, but don't fail to make an appellate-proof record first!
The Depp v. Heard case is interesting to me for two reasons. First, it pits the rubes (juries) against the robes (judges). The rubes in VA found Jonny more charming and believable, and the robes in the UK (trial and appeal) found otherwise. In this town, the plaintiffs' lawyers have done it right. They don't choose between the rubes and robes. They manipulate the ever dumbening rubes here, like Depp did, with parlor tricks, personality, and appeals to passion (this is no judgment on whether Depp or Heard was more truthful, only which was more effective), and they secure the robes through campaign donations.
The second interesting issue, is the inapplicability of defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel in VA, which applies in some states, and in the Ninth Circuit. The doctrine might well have barred Depp's suit in Nevada and federal court. I wonder if that (in addition to VA's weaker Anti-SLAPP laws) was a significant consideration in filing suit in VA.
4:01 I'm the Franchise guy who posted earlier. What is "defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel" – serious question
"The Ninth Circuit has recognized the validity of defensive , nonmutual collateral estoppel, where a defendant precludes a plaintiff from relitigating an issue that the plaintiff had previously litigated unsuccessfully against a different party." State of Idaho Potato Com'n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708, 713 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005).
In the Depp case it means that because Depp sued the Sun, and lost, after they called him a wife beater, he could have been barred from re-litigating the issue of whether he was a wife beater. There may be some issues over whether the issues were the same – a court might find the published allegations of abuse were too different.