Mega Billions

  • Law

  • A hearing about proposed amendments to the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (ADKT 0501) is set for November 5, 2018, at 3 pm. [nvcourts]
  • Sandra Day O’Connor has the beginning stages of dementia–“probably Alzheimer’s.” [Las Vegas Sun]
  • How to keep the $1.6 Billion Mega Millions jackpot from ruining your life. One of the early steps–hire a lawyer! [NY Times]
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 3:58 pm

Regarding the petition to amend the NRAP – as I read it, in a nutshell: the court will "expedite" appeals of dismissals based on 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction), 12(b)(5) (failure to state a claim), and summary judgment.

This means the court will review the appeal on the record, with no briefing or oral argument, unless it orders otherwise.

My initial thought is that this is going to essentially "expedite" the appeals of at least 50% of all civil cases, which are decided on summary judgment. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but it seems like including all cases decided on summary judgment is massively overbroad.

I can understand final orders on 12(b)(5) – presumably leave to amend was already granted once, or something. So all that remains is a legal determination of whether a claim is stated. Easy peasy. 12(c) (judgment on the pleadings) would make sense too.

But it seems to me that personal jurisdiction is fact-intensive, and summary judgment is going to essentially eliminate the ability for a "real" appeal of most civil cases.

Also, this is the first I've seen of what looks like a potentially massive change to the NRAP.

Am I missing the big picture?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 8:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You are not missing the big picture.

Written comments or requests to speak at the hearing are due no later than tomorrow.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 4:13 pm

It seems unfair. The moving party gets a motion and a reply on a mtd or msj. The opposing party gets one shot. If the moving party wins, the district court will have the moving party/winner prepare the order oftentimes. Then, the responding party appeals. No more briefing. So, the loser has 3 briefs against him (the motion, reply and order) and no opportunity to set up why it was error to grant the motion beyond whatever was written in the responding p & a. On mtd's this will only disfavor plaintiffs b/c orders denying mtds are not appealable. I oppose this rule and will say that at the hearing. I think you have to write in by the end of today or tomorrow to appear or submit comments. This is separate from the NRCP committee stuff.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 6:11 pm

For the legitimate criticism which it gets on this Blog, the Supreme Court actually managed to process an uncontested reinstatement on Scott Holper in six (6) weeks from the date of filing, including two weeks from the deadline for Briefs (which passed without briefing). Maybe things will get faster in regards to this timing.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 7:07 pm

A story about our buddy General Laxalt is prominently featured on Drudge right now (in the words of Ralston – we matter?):
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/412694-12-family-members-of-gop-nevada-governor-candidate-pen-op-ed-opposing-him

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 9:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

All Laxalts are insufferable. These Laxalts are just annoyed that there's a new Laxalt sucking milk from the teat of the family name. They see someone that's just as phony and opportunistic as they are, and they hate how close it is to what they see in the mirror. If you've spent any amount of time with any Laxalt, you know this is true.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 24, 2018 3:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Prebred Laxalts are not wanting to share the spotlight with a Half Domenici who they are afraid will tarnish the family name. Of course the Domenicis do not want him either.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 24, 2018 3:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Purebred* (although they might be prebred also).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 9:44 pm

Regarding the administrative dockets, orders regarding amendments, comments, etc., how does one get notice of these things? I just paged through the October Nevada Lawyer, and maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any notice.

I get a million emails from the State Bar trying to sell me CLEs, but I don't remember getting any notice of this hearing or request (and deadline!) for comments.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 10:36 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Read the Nevada Rules on the Administrative Docket: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/NRAD.html

There's no express requirement that the Court give notice of or solicit comments from the bench and bar on any petitions for rule amendments.

The only express provision speaking of public comments is NRAD 5.6.

The only express publication requirement is after the fact, once a rule has been adopted or amended. NRAD Section 6.

Maybe some amendments to NRAD are in order to provide for notice and comment requirements similar to those under the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act applicable to executive agencies in the adoption of regulations that carry the force of law.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 25, 2018 4:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What you propose makes too much sense. It will never work.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 25, 2018 7:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Precisely because it makes sense and is eminently more fair than what occurs now is why it will never happen.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 9:55 pm

For those who care, the Family Court finalists, to fill the Judge Steel vacancy, are juvenile hearing masters Soonhe"Sunny" Baily and Dave Gibson Jr., as well as private attorney Shann Winesett from Pecos Legal.

In my view, Winesett towers over the other two in terms of Family Law knowledge and experience. The other two, as juvenile hearing masters, basically have experience in juvenile law, and have also proven to be pretty good judicial officers with good demeanors, but this department will, in all likelihood, continue to hear Family Law matters concerning custody, child support and alimony, division of property and debts, etc.

And Winesett in addition to vast experience in these areas, has a commanding knowledge of the statutes and case law. As far as I know, I don't think the other two have substantive experience in Nevada representing clients in domestic matters. So, if the appointment revolved purely around qualifications, Winesett is clearly the best, even though the other two are solid.

But these matters are seldom if ever limited to the question of who is the most experienced and capable. Political and other considerations come into play. So, although I think Winesett should receive the appointment, it is difficult to say whether or not he actually will.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 10:16 pm

The vacancy is for Department L, for Judge Elliot

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 10:36 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

True. But the list of finalists, as discussed above, is accurate. So who should be appointed?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2018 10:47 pm

Speaking of judges, I notice a certain dynamic occurring in one of the races, which is not uncommon in judicial races.

Candidate A is harshly criticized by Candidate B for raising vast sums of money. Candidate B insists they have raised very little, and in fact returns any contributions wherein Candidate B suspects the contributor expects something. This is clearly an allusion to the fact that if attorneys contribute in a race where the attorney is likely to appear before whoever wins the race, that the attorney expects preferential treatment in return for the contribution.

But I think what is interesting about this seemingly principled, noble stand is that it is invariably asserted by the candidate with little or no ability to raise substantive funds. It is, of course, never asserted by the party who is effective at raising funds. If a party can raise hundreds of thousands from outside lawyers for a judicial race, such candidate never insists on returning the money and self-funding their own campaign.