Judge Kent Dawson ruled against Egg Works’ action for COVID-19 business interruption coverage. [HarrisMartin -sub. req’d for full story]
Two months after Sheldon Adelson’s death and despite keeping its corporate headquarters here, Las Vegas Sands has sold its Vegas properties for $6.25B and effectively left the market. [TNI; RJ]
Lawsuit filed by Kemp Jones and Eglet Adams alleges baby foods have high levels of toxic metals. [RJ]
Where the “Unspiked Rail” bested a future Nevada Supreme Court justice. [National Law Review]
No, not everyone but you knew that Jay Young was selected for the role of the EJDC’s second discovery commissioner. It was discussed at last month’s civil bench bar meeting (the next one is next Tuesday), but it does not appear there has been any official announcement or press release yet.
I had a case or two against Forsberg back in the day. Never thought much about her good or bad. Got to witness her on the bench and holy sh!t. She's awful. Not neutral at all. She picks a side from the get go and if you're not it, you're screwed.
I'm noticing a trend among the new judges that came from the PD's office. None of them seem to follow established case law or statutes, and make everything into this sort of bad-faith "well, I read the case/statute differently" cutesy nonsense. They know what they case says, they're just ignoring it because they're used to arguing that a law shouldn't apply. I foresee a lot of reversals leading to absolutely zero consequences…basically a role reversal from the Judge Doug Smith days.
What is the decades of settled caselaw that Throne is ignoring? This is confusing coming from a person who obtained a specialization designation in family law.
@11:31 exactly! That's why it was such a surprise. I didn't support her campaign, but I thought she'd do better than she is. It's too bad. We could use some good judges in family court.
Erika Ballou has not been impressive. It has been very apparent that she has not known what was going on in each matter. Not even saying that she has made the wrong calls (which she has), but she has repeatedly not even known what the issue was in front of her. I have seen it a couple of times already. She will start saying something that has nothing to do with the motion, then the poor attorney will say something like "ugh… your honor this is a motion for …." or "your honor, this is a status check on…" She does not seem to be actually reading anything that is in front of her.
March 3, 2021 at 10:37 AM – May I suggest that much the same is said about former prosecutors and the implication that most have an "if they're accused they're guilty mindset".
Perhaps a less confrontational and more constructive message is that all new judges should keep in mind that they probably have certain preconceived notions and one of the best things they can do to be the best judge they can, is to remember that fact as much as possible.
11:52 — What can you expect from someone who woke up the morning after Election Day and discovered that her worst nightmare had come true? Gilliam was robbed, and now we're all going to pay for it for the next 6 years.
11:31 here. I am not Throne, not a friend of Throne's, but did vote for her based on her years of experience and specialization. I haven't appeared in front of her yet, but am curious about the comment that she is ignoring the law. That surprises me, so I will ask again, what law?
2:44-As far as the discussion in this thread concerning Judge Throne, she has been criticized in this blog today, as well as over the last few days, of being "arrogant" and having "robeitits"–matters which may be relatively unimportant IF she is knowledgeable, well-prepared and if her decisions are supported by the factual findings and the law.
My view is that while she does not necessarily seem to have a warm, reassuring bedside manner, and that she could be more "user friendly" for lack of a better term, that she does take pride in her work and is quite bright, prepared and conscientious.
That said, I certainly buy that after she diligently considers a set of facts, and the relevant law in the area, that she winds up getting some matters wrong as to the Law. That will happen at times to all judges.
But I have trouble buying that she is lazy, unprepared and either is completely ignorant of the controlling case law and statutes, or worse yet, willfully decides not to apply them.
So, I accept that she may have "misapplied" the law in a given case, but I have trouble accepting that she would willfully "ignore" the law.
But I could well be wrong. I'm just offering my view.
Same as to Forsberg. I'm having trouble accepting how she has been portrayed here. She's been condemned on this blog as being an incessant yeller, and most aggressively taking up for one side as an advocate, thereby abdicating her judicial role, and then eviscerating the other side.
I have trouble accepting that although, again, I could well be wrong. Yes, she is one of the more engaged and involved judges, interjects with questions and observations, etc. And, yes, that may not be to the liking of some attorneys who prefer judges who do not speak much, or show their hand, until arguments are completed and it is time for the judge to rule.
But I'm having difficulty envisioning her as a female version of Judge Bill Potter, which is how she is portrayed on this blog.
Keep in mind that almost all of the new judges are inexperienced. At this point they know that the attorneys know more about the case that the judge does. For the good judges who work at the job, the hard-shell will wear off with experience.
12:15–If you can't find someone worse than Nancy Allf to complain about, you will be in for a shock once you start practicing before some of these people who you have obviously not appeared in front of.
I'm not taking up for Allf, or any other judge for that matter. They are all, in varying degrees, quite deserving of criticism and critique.
But when I see posters on the blog complain about Tim Williams, or Sturman or Allf, I feel really badly for such attorneys as they are in for a real rude awakening.
In other words, if you think those judges are bad, wait until you see…(insert any of as much as 20 different RJC Criminal/Civil judges, all of who clearly are painfully inferior to Allf, Sturman or Williams).
I wouldn't post specifics about my interactions with judges for the simple fact that I may have to appear in front of them in the future and I absolutely believe they read this blog. I also keep in mind that this is an anonymous blog. When I read about certain judges I just keep those comments in mind and know to take them with a grain of salt. If I see it for myself, I know whether or not the commenter was being honest. When I see the same comments about the same judges, it helps me prepare for hearings with those judges. Nothing wrong with being prepared, even if I end up being over prepared once in a while.
Might I suggest that perhaps Eglet Adams is "desperate" for justice, and that they are bringing these cases because it is the right thing to do. Someone has to hold these gargantuan corporate actors accountable.
I will say that the next time I am front of Jennifer Dorsey, it is for the kids.
Guest
Anonymous
March 3, 2021 6:12 pm
What does everyone think of Sands leaving LV? I don't know enough about the industry to have a well developed, informed opinion. As a person who has a financial stake in the well being of this town, I have to be honest that it causes me a little bit of concern that a sophisticated, home grown company has concluded that they are better off leaving LV entirely.
There was an article a while back in which Adelson stated that 80% of his compliance and regulatory costs came from NV. So a corporation doesn't want to comply with safety laws and pay their workers and whatnot. Byeeee.
I wonder if the new owner is still going to let metro use their underground military training facility?
Remember Adelson hates unions and labor laws. The construction of the Venetian resulted in dozens of lawsuits from contractors who were never paid by Adelson. My guess s that in Asian there is more freedom to. . . . well. . . . maneuver.
Uh, but Adelson is dead. Demised. Deceased. Bereft of life. Not just resting. So why would it matter if he hated unions and labor laws while he was alive (which was also, btw, before they sold out and pulled up stakes)?
Now, if his organization would only divest itself of the RJ — then maybe we'd have a chance of getting a real newspaper back in town, instead of that snot rag of a journal and it's scummy little right-wing columnists.
I agree with getting rid of the radical right-wingers, but the problem is that new ownership will immediately cut costs and the paper will be back to limping along with far too few reporters, photogs, and copy editors. At least Shelly was investing in his propaganda division.
1:32 is right. There was a trade off with ownership by the Adelsons. On the one hand, they made nutjobs like Wayne Allyn Root columnists. They also ran those ridiculous pro-Trump "commentaries" (fealty in print) on the front page of the Sunday paper from Debra J. Sanders. On the other hand, they invested quite a bit into hard news. When the hard news hasn't encounter a conflict of interest, it has actually been quite good, in my opinion.
I thought it was quite interesting that the RJ sacked Sanders right after Trump left office, suggesting that her usefulness was a Trump cheerleader had been spent. They also got rid of Wayne Allyn Root, whose columns read like a Facebook screed from your crazy uncle.
As much as I hated the conflict of interest and the pro-Trump nonsense, I would prefer a beefier paper. Look at what a joke the Las Vegas Sun is now. Surely that isn't what anybody wants for the RJ.
Anyone who utters the non-sence that the RJ is right-leaning at all never reads the paper. I read every day and not a drop of ink is spilled criticizing or exposing any democrats. Today's headline is "Majority of Nevadans support Sisolak's handling of …" The now year-long shut-down (right or wrong) is still one of the biggest infringements on liberty in our lifetime, justified or not, there is no media in the state that will challenge. Surely not the Sun or so-called Independent. If you say RJ is right wing, give evidence or shut up.
I'm confused. The media, I mean real "journalism" media, reports what is happening in the world and stops short of conclusions. The RJ reported on a poll as to whether people supported Sisolak's handling of covid. But you're mad that they didn't challenge it? The Hannityization of supposed news sources has made the public bloodthirsty idiots who just crave opinion red meat rather than actual reporting. So now when people see actual reporting with no hit job at the end they decry it as fake news or RINO propaganda. This is a problem for which I have no solution.
Las Vegas native here, it's not a secret that the RJ has been a right-leaning newspaper for decades. The RJ was only 1 of 20 newspapers in the entire United States to endorse Trump in 2016. If you lived here during the 2010 election campaign, the RJ went all out for Sharon Angle, so much so, that its two editors were fired by their parent company after Reid beat Angle. As mentioned above, the RJ was the only paper in the country to hire Wayne Allen Root as a columnist. If you don't believe that the RJ has gone after Sisolak, then I suggest that you read Victor Joecks' columns. I believe that you can count in one hand the number of Democrats that the RJ has endorsed for federal office in the last decade. While the RJ is not exactly Breitbart, it's clearly a right-leaning newspaper. Just because the RJ is reporting on a public opinion poll, the results of which you don't like, isn't evidence of any political leanings.
The RJ also uses "Newsmax" as a wire service for hard news…. like the AP. But sure, it's "far left". It's crazy people actually think that.
Guest
Anonymous
March 3, 2021 8:59 pm
Help please. I'm a 2-year attorney working in Family Law. I have only done divorces and a couple of custody cases. I have a family member that cannot have children. My cousin just found out she is pregnant and wants my in-law to be able to adopt the child. Is this possible? Is this something I should be able to do or very complicated? Not expecting anyone to do my job, but if you could point me in the right direction, many thanks. My best guess right now is to file a Petition to Terminate for my Cousin and then a Petition to Adopt for my in-law. Any help appreciated. Thank you.
Regarding the posts about judges being parochial to their experience in practice, we just last week had a judge whose practice experience was purely criminal. When faced with 2 hearings on the calendar (1 criminal 1 civil) the judge chose to do a sentencing that took 26 minutes over the civil motion (which took 4 minutes) because the Judge determined that the judge was more comfortable with criminal proceedings and "civil motions always take longer."
It is this lack of even fundamental understandings of civil matters that makes practitioners and parties lose any confidence in the court system.
Observations about the new judges in RJC Civil/Criminal and/or Family Court(where there are 10 new ones)?
I had a case or two against Forsberg back in the day. Never thought much about her good or bad. Got to witness her on the bench and holy sh!t. She's awful. Not neutral at all. She picks a side from the get go and if you're not it, you're screwed.
I'm noticing a trend among the new judges that came from the PD's office. None of them seem to follow established case law or statutes, and make everything into this sort of bad-faith "well, I read the case/statute differently" cutesy nonsense. They know what they case says, they're just ignoring it because they're used to arguing that a law shouldn't apply. I foresee a lot of reversals leading to absolutely zero consequences…basically a role reversal from the Judge Doug Smith days.
10:37 it's not just the judges from the PD. Throne is a long term family law attorney and she's ignoring decades of settled caselaw.
What is the decades of settled caselaw that Throne is ignoring? This is confusing coming from a person who obtained a specialization designation in family law.
Lol 11:31 aren't you too busy being a judge to be posting on here Judge Thorne?
@11:31 exactly! That's why it was such a surprise. I didn't support her campaign, but I thought she'd do better than she is. It's too bad. We could use some good judges in family court.
Erika Ballou has not been impressive. It has been very apparent that she has not known what was going on in each matter. Not even saying that she has made the wrong calls (which she has), but she has repeatedly not even known what the issue was in front of her. I have seen it a couple of times already. She will start saying something that has nothing to do with the motion, then the poor attorney will say something like "ugh… your honor this is a motion for …." or "your honor, this is a status check on…" She does not seem to be actually reading anything that is in front of her.
Similar to Nancy Allf.
March 3, 2021 at 10:37 AM – May I suggest that much the same is said about former prosecutors and the implication that most have an "if they're accused they're guilty mindset".
Perhaps a less confrontational and more constructive message is that all new judges should keep in mind that they probably have certain preconceived notions and one of the best things they can do to be the best judge they can, is to remember that fact as much as possible.
11:52 — What can you expect from someone who woke up the morning after Election Day and discovered that her worst nightmare had come true? Gilliam was robbed, and now we're all going to pay for it for the next 6 years.
Dawn Throne was an arrogant, abusive practitioner. Why would you expect her to improve once she took the bench? I definitely did not vote for her.
11:31 here. I am not Throne, not a friend of Throne's, but did vote for her based on her years of experience and specialization. I haven't appeared in front of her yet, but am curious about the comment that she is ignoring the law. That surprises me, so I will ask again, what law?
2:44-As far as the discussion in this thread concerning Judge Throne, she has been criticized in this blog today, as well as over the last few days, of being "arrogant" and having "robeitits"–matters which may be relatively unimportant IF she is knowledgeable, well-prepared and if her decisions are supported by the factual findings and the law.
My view is that while she does not necessarily seem to have a warm, reassuring bedside manner, and that she could be more "user friendly" for lack of a better term, that she does take pride in her work and is quite bright, prepared and conscientious.
That said, I certainly buy that after she diligently considers a set of facts, and the relevant law in the area, that she winds up getting some matters wrong as to the Law. That will happen at times to all judges.
But I have trouble buying that she is lazy, unprepared and either is completely ignorant of the controlling case law and statutes, or worse yet, willfully decides not to apply them.
So, I accept that she may have "misapplied" the law in a given case, but I have trouble accepting that she would willfully "ignore" the law.
But I could well be wrong. I'm just offering my view.
Same as to Forsberg. I'm having trouble accepting how she has been portrayed here. She's been condemned on this blog as being an incessant yeller, and most aggressively taking up for one side as an advocate, thereby abdicating her judicial role, and then eviscerating the other side.
I have trouble accepting that although, again, I could well be wrong. Yes, she is one of the more engaged and involved judges, interjects with questions and observations, etc. And, yes, that may not be to the liking of some attorneys who prefer judges who do not speak much, or show their hand, until arguments are completed and it is time for the judge to rule.
But I'm having difficulty envisioning her as a female version of Judge Bill Potter, which is how she is portrayed on this blog.
So, what do other posters think?
Keep in mind that almost all of the new judges are inexperienced. At this point they know that the attorneys know more about the case that the judge does. For the good judges who work at the job, the hard-shell will wear off with experience.
12:15–If you can't find someone worse than Nancy Allf to complain about, you will be in for a shock once you start practicing before some of these people who you have obviously not appeared in front of.
I'm not taking up for Allf, or any other judge for that matter. They are all, in varying degrees, quite deserving of criticism and critique.
But when I see posters on the blog complain about Tim Williams, or Sturman or Allf, I feel really badly for such attorneys as they are in for a real rude awakening.
In other words, if you think those judges are bad, wait until you see…(insert any of as much as 20 different RJC Criminal/Civil judges, all of who clearly are painfully inferior to Allf, Sturman or Williams).
No, Allf is bad. I agree with the above poster. She used to be alright, then I don't know what happened. She is nuts.
I wouldn't post specifics about my interactions with judges for the simple fact that I may have to appear in front of them in the future and I absolutely believe they read this blog. I also keep in mind that this is an anonymous blog. When I read about certain judges I just keep those comments in mind and know to take them with a grain of salt. If I see it for myself, I know whether or not the commenter was being honest. When I see the same comments about the same judges, it helps me prepare for hearings with those judges. Nothing wrong with being prepared, even if I end up being over prepared once in a while.
Nancy Alff is one of the worst I've experienced.
Is Eglet Adams desperate for cases? Baby food case and the insurance premium cases.
Might I suggest that perhaps Eglet Adams is "desperate" for justice, and that they are bringing these cases because it is the right thing to do. Someone has to hold these gargantuan corporate actors accountable.
Yeah, that's it.
Yes, justice. That is what they are after. Not cash cows or deep pockets. Just justice.
"It's for the kids!"
I will say that the next time I am front of Jennifer Dorsey, it is for the kids.
What does everyone think of Sands leaving LV? I don't know enough about the industry to have a well developed, informed opinion. As a person who has a financial stake in the well being of this town, I have to be honest that it causes me a little bit of concern that a sophisticated, home grown company has concluded that they are better off leaving LV entirely.
There was an article a while back in which Adelson stated that 80% of his compliance and regulatory costs came from NV. So a corporation doesn't want to comply with safety laws and pay their workers and whatnot. Byeeee.
I wonder if the new owner is still going to let metro use their underground military training facility?
Remember Adelson hates unions and labor laws. The construction of the Venetian resulted in dozens of lawsuits from contractors who were never paid by Adelson. My guess s that in Asian there is more freedom to. . . . well. . . . maneuver.
Uh, but Adelson is dead. Demised. Deceased. Bereft of life. Not just resting. So why would it matter if he hated unions and labor laws while he was alive (which was also, btw, before they sold out and pulled up stakes)?
I always appreciate a Python reference.
Now, if his organization would only divest itself of the RJ — then maybe we'd have a chance of getting a real newspaper back in town, instead of that snot rag of a journal and it's scummy little right-wing columnists.
I agree with getting rid of the radical right-wingers, but the problem is that new ownership will immediately cut costs and the paper will be back to limping along with far too few reporters, photogs, and copy editors. At least Shelly was investing in his propaganda division.
1:32 is right. There was a trade off with ownership by the Adelsons. On the one hand, they made nutjobs like Wayne Allyn Root columnists. They also ran those ridiculous pro-Trump "commentaries" (fealty in print) on the front page of the Sunday paper from Debra J. Sanders. On the other hand, they invested quite a bit into hard news. When the hard news hasn't encounter a conflict of interest, it has actually been quite good, in my opinion.
I thought it was quite interesting that the RJ sacked Sanders right after Trump left office, suggesting that her usefulness was a Trump cheerleader had been spent. They also got rid of Wayne Allyn Root, whose columns read like a Facebook screed from your crazy uncle.
As much as I hated the conflict of interest and the pro-Trump nonsense, I would prefer a beefier paper. Look at what a joke the Las Vegas Sun is now. Surely that isn't what anybody wants for the RJ.
The RJ is so far left and pro-establishment I would not use it to line a bird cage. It needs to follow the path of the Sun and set over the horizon.
Anyone who utters the non-sence that the RJ is right-leaning at all never reads the paper. I read every day and not a drop of ink is spilled criticizing or exposing any democrats. Today's headline is "Majority of Nevadans support Sisolak's handling of …" The now year-long shut-down (right or wrong) is still one of the biggest infringements on liberty in our lifetime, justified or not, there is no media in the state that will challenge. Surely not the Sun or so-called Independent. If you say RJ is right wing, give evidence or shut up.
I'm confused. The media, I mean real "journalism" media, reports what is happening in the world and stops short of conclusions. The RJ reported on a poll as to whether people supported Sisolak's handling of covid. But you're mad that they didn't challenge it? The Hannityization of supposed news sources has made the public bloodthirsty idiots who just crave opinion red meat rather than actual reporting. So now when people see actual reporting with no hit job at the end they decry it as fake news or RINO propaganda. This is a problem for which I have no solution.
Las Vegas native here, it's not a secret that the RJ has been a right-leaning newspaper for decades. The RJ was only 1 of 20 newspapers in the entire United States to endorse Trump in 2016. If you lived here during the 2010 election campaign, the RJ went all out for Sharon Angle, so much so, that its two editors were fired by their parent company after Reid beat Angle. As mentioned above, the RJ was the only paper in the country to hire Wayne Allen Root as a columnist. If you don't believe that the RJ has gone after Sisolak, then I suggest that you read Victor Joecks' columns. I believe that you can count in one hand the number of Democrats that the RJ has endorsed for federal office in the last decade. While the RJ is not exactly Breitbart, it's clearly a right-leaning newspaper. Just because the RJ is reporting on a public opinion poll, the results of which you don't like, isn't evidence of any political leanings.
The RJ also uses "Newsmax" as a wire service for hard news…. like the AP. But sure, it's "far left". It's crazy people actually think that.
Help please. I'm a 2-year attorney working in Family Law. I have only done divorces and a couple of custody cases. I have a family member that cannot have children. My cousin just found out she is pregnant and wants my in-law to be able to adopt the child. Is this possible? Is this something I should be able to do or very complicated? Not expecting anyone to do my job, but if you could point me in the right direction, many thanks. My best guess right now is to file a Petition to Terminate for my Cousin and then a Petition to Adopt for my in-law. Any help appreciated. Thank you.
You may need to point them to Legal Aid of Southern Nevada (702) 386-1070. It is best handled by someone experienced in family matters.
The Self Help center has an entire section devoted to close family TPR and adoptions.
https://www.familylawselfhelpcenter.org/self-help/adoption-termination-of-parental-rights/108-adoption-filing/216-file
Please do not refer anyone to the grifters at Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada. No self-respecting attorney should be doing pro-bono work for them.
Agree w 11:17
#freemoscowmitch
#freebonniebulla
#freebakedalaska
Regarding the posts about judges being parochial to their experience in practice, we just last week had a judge whose practice experience was purely criminal. When faced with 2 hearings on the calendar (1 criminal 1 civil) the judge chose to do a sentencing that took 26 minutes over the civil motion (which took 4 minutes) because the Judge determined that the judge was more comfortable with criminal proceedings and "civil motions always take longer."
It is this lack of even fundamental understandings of civil matters that makes practitioners and parties lose any confidence in the court system.