I’m not ever sure it’s directionally correct. The golf course was part of a green space concession to the original approvals… like requiring that Inspirada or Summerlin builders install so many new parks per pod. Already they were getting a sweet deal by being giving a “green space” that generates private revenue. But then when those idiots can’t make a profit of the golf course they turn around and want to make more houses depriving the community of the initial green space concession and letting them build a bunch more houses in land that has shot up in value. The city screwed up by not changing the zoning on the parcel. But does that mean the parcel ownets should get to disregard that their property was designated as a green space not a place for them to make a bunch of stupid cookie cutter houses?
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2026 3:29 pm
Today’s blog headline: What my girlfriend’s vajaja said the first time I made sweet love to her.
I know the answer but hesitate to be blunt, but probably the condom wouldn’t stay on.
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2026 3:43 pm
Reynolds is great. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with a bunch of new judges who are actually taught to NEVER grant MTD or MSJs because they’ll get reversed. Literally this is what they’re told.
Reynolds outraising his opponent 3:1. Also outworking him on the rubber chicken dinner circuit. Opponent does have the culinary and other union endorsements.
I think he’s saying Erika spent 0 and won whereas Phil and Terry spent a ton and lost. The implication being that money has no role in the election. Which is fair. It’s more about your name, your location on the ballot, the little incumbent symbol, etc.
These are all outliers that prove the general rule. At best, the defensible claim is that winning the fundraising battle doesn’t guarantee victory. But it usually does highly correlate.
It’s hard to say honestly. Because it’s not a partisan election and because our electorate doesn’t know anything about judges I’m convinced it’s vague factors like what someone’s name sounds like, gender, location on the ballot, etc. that determine our elections–not advertising and not a well-researched review of the candidates.
Name a candidate who won on their war chest and I will show two who won with the smaller war chest. Heck one can go back as far as Halvorson who had no job after Kathy Hardcastle had her axed so she simply ran for judge without letting anyone know her true nature. Legislative and executive offices depend largely on fundraising. Judicial offices that has not been true for a very long time.
What a surprise that they’re both backed by the PI firms. I’ve been to a few of the rubber chicken lunches and heard the contrast between them and their opponents. It’s not even close. The PI Pals can barely explain why they want to be judges, let alone why they’re remotely qualified for the job.
That’s interesting. I don’t practice much in state court but I thought the stereotype is that older judges are always the ones who deny all MTDs and MSJs because they think a jury should decide everything.
from my own experience, you have a much higher chance of an older / more seasoned judge granting your dispositive motion than a newer/younger one because the former don’t care about being reversed anymore.
Reynolds is a conservative who sees life in terms of black and white. Judges are granted discretion to see the world as it is: in shades of gray. Remember when Carolyn Ellsworth sentenced former prosecutor David Schubert to 9 months in jail (for a small amount of cocaine) even though the DA and Parole and Probation agreed to probation? She said she was holding him to a higher standard. That’s a black and white judge who should not be on the bench.
Exactly. They don’t need more judges. They need to do their jobs. If it’s a question of law. Dismiss it. Save us all the time and effort of two years of discovery. This as a policy is absurd (but I’m sure the NJA loves it because it forces carriers to settle nonsense cases rather than pay 2 years of legal fees and experts).
I think the meta glasses (aka perv glasses) would already be prohibited, but specificity is always nice!
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/general/media/
Seems like city of Las Vegas is a mess. They can’t handle HR issues and cost people $250 million with the badlands.
In other news, the sun rose in the east today.
the Nevada Supreme Court got the badlands case wrong, the City is dumb, but the Court’s decision doesn’t make any sense
The Nevada Supreme Court just wants to make sure struggling inverse condemnation attorneys can make ends meet.
the result is directionally correct, although the damages are wildly inflated. the reasoning to get there was iffy
I’m not ever sure it’s directionally correct. The golf course was part of a green space concession to the original approvals… like requiring that Inspirada or Summerlin builders install so many new parks per pod. Already they were getting a sweet deal by being giving a “green space” that generates private revenue. But then when those idiots can’t make a profit of the golf course they turn around and want to make more houses depriving the community of the initial green space concession and letting them build a bunch more houses in land that has shot up in value. The city screwed up by not changing the zoning on the parcel. But does that mean the parcel ownets should get to disregard that their property was designated as a green space not a place for them to make a bunch of stupid cookie cutter houses?
Today’s blog headline: What my girlfriend’s vajaja said the first time I made sweet love to her.
I know the answer but hesitate to be blunt, but probably the condom wouldn’t stay on.
Reynolds is great. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with a bunch of new judges who are actually taught to NEVER grant MTD or MSJs because they’ll get reversed. Literally this is what they’re told.
Reynolds’ opponent will be a nail in the coffin for ever having civil proficient judges ever again. Same if Barisich’s opponent wins.
Reynolds outraising his opponent 3:1. Also outworking him on the rubber chicken dinner circuit. Opponent does have the culinary and other union endorsements.
So that’s the reason he is sucking up to the big defense firms!!!
Endorsed by “I’m Joe Lombardo.”
“C’mon man!”
Ask Phil Aurbach, Erika Ballou and Terry Coffing how important winning the fundraising battle is
…this comment confuses me.
I think he’s saying Erika spent 0 and won whereas Phil and Terry spent a ton and lost. The implication being that money has no role in the election. Which is fair. It’s more about your name, your location on the ballot, the little incumbent symbol, etc.
These are all outliers that prove the general rule. At best, the defensible claim is that winning the fundraising battle doesn’t guarantee victory. But it usually does highly correlate.
It’s hard to say honestly. Because it’s not a partisan election and because our electorate doesn’t know anything about judges I’m convinced it’s vague factors like what someone’s name sounds like, gender, location on the ballot, etc. that determine our elections–not advertising and not a well-researched review of the candidates.
Hardly outliers. Funding of candidates has played no role in elections since EmergeNevada took over and that has been at least 8 years.
Stahp.
Name a candidate who won on their war chest and I will show two who won with the smaller war chest. Heck one can go back as far as Halvorson who had no job after Kathy Hardcastle had her axed so she simply ran for judge without letting anyone know her true nature. Legislative and executive offices depend largely on fundraising. Judicial offices that has not been true for a very long time.
Why do these 80 year olds keep running for office. over and over again
Because Boomers keep voting them into office over and over again.
What a surprise that they’re both backed by the PI firms. I’ve been to a few of the rubber chicken lunches and heard the contrast between them and their opponents. It’s not even close. The PI Pals can barely explain why they want to be judges, let alone why they’re remotely qualified for the job.
Is it too much to wish for judges that displayed some level of competence or achieved anything notable prior to running?
As long as we have elected judges it is. Any barred idiot with 10 years under their belt has a chance of being elected.
if they grant MTD they will never be donated to again
That’s interesting. I don’t practice much in state court but I thought the stereotype is that older judges are always the ones who deny all MTDs and MSJs because they think a jury should decide everything.
from my own experience, you have a much higher chance of an older / more seasoned judge granting your dispositive motion than a newer/younger one because the former don’t care about being reversed anymore.
And, more importantly, they care less about being re-elected so they’re not beholden to their army of 10K donors.
Reynolds is a conservative who sees life in terms of black and white. Judges are granted discretion to see the world as it is: in shades of gray. Remember when Carolyn Ellsworth sentenced former prosecutor David Schubert to 9 months in jail (for a small amount of cocaine) even though the DA and Parole and Probation agreed to probation? She said she was holding him to a higher standard. That’s a black and white judge who should not be on the bench.
Exactly. They don’t need more judges. They need to do their jobs. If it’s a question of law. Dismiss it. Save us all the time and effort of two years of discovery. This as a policy is absurd (but I’m sure the NJA loves it because it forces carriers to settle nonsense cases rather than pay 2 years of legal fees and experts).
at a minimum start narrowing the scope of discovery by getting rid of SOME claims at the MTD stage.
Nope. We can’t even grant PMTD on negligent entrustment or punitive–even when there is zero factual support because…. mumbles…. notice pleading?
What is going on with the Nevada Supreme Court website? Everything is coming up as a bad gateway for me.