Judge Jasmin Lilly-Spells approved a roughly $1.4 million settlement for Fred Steese to compensate him for serving over 21 years on a wrongful conviction–a moral victory for him and his lawyer Lisa Rasmussen. [RJ]
Clark County agreed to pay $1.5 million as part of a broader $14.5 million settlement to resolve a wrongful conviction suit brought by DeMarlo Berry (represented by Samantha Wilcox).
DETR has a backlog of nearly 2,000 unscheduled PUA appeals. [TNI]
Years long legal battle over Opportunity Scholarship growth freezes continues in the Supreme Court. [TNI]
A company claims CCSD stole copyrights. [Nevada Current]
Commentary: Take Blockchains LLC seriously? You first, Governor. [Nevada Current]
Clark County has expanded its vaccine eligibility. [8NewsNow]
Nevada expects 24,000 doses of the new one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine. [Las Vegas Sun]
Yayyy You! 🙂 Yes, one day at a time. And missing one day of school never killed anybody either! I've been there with the zoom failures. Hang in there!
12:41 from yesterday here. That's awesome that you took some time with your kids last night! So now the question to ask yourself to make it a little easier to do the same tonight-is your work day significantly harder because you took that time? If not, make the same time tonight because now you know you can.
At night everyone at our house (including me) wants to mind-meld with their devices, then go to bed. I have been making it a point to grab a board game, and pound out at least one game — usually quick ones like Munchkin, Fluxx, or Code Names.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2021 6:51 pm
What's with the fascination in the reporting with PUA claims? How about straight UI claims?
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2021 6:58 pm
I had to look up Judge Jasmin Lilly-Spells to see whether or not she is a Clark County judge. Can't keep track anymore without a program.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2021 7:07 pm
There was commentary yesterday about black robe fever already taking effect with a few newly minted judges.
I have earned that there is no effective antidote to robeitis.
Arrogant and intemperate judges are seldom humbled even if they encounter high reversal rates, low Judging The Judges survey scoes, well-supported election challengers, etc.
The reason they don't seem affected by any of that, and none of it causes them to become somewhat more humbled and grounded, is that they rationalize all of it away.
By way of example, they simply will argue that they got it right and that the "clueless" appellate courts, that reversed them, got it wrong.(As an aside, we of course all concede that appellate courts will get it wrong a certain percentage of the time).
But the way they rationalize away low survey scores on the Judging The Judges is a particularly interesting and convoluted.
One argument they advance is that the survey is totally unscientific and fatally flawed.
And, truth be told, that particular point may have some arguable merit.
But their main attack, and rationalization, for low survey scores is quite humorous, if one truly reflects on it. They claim that an isolated disgruntled attorney, who lost and rightfully so in the eyes of the judge, called scores of random attorneys and had them grade down said judge on the survey.
Now, let's examine that for a moment. You may have your own reasons for providing negative survey input about a particular judge. But the concept that someone would call a bunch of attorneys and ask them to grade down a judge because that attorney is pissed off at said judge is simply preposterous. And yet some low-scoring judges, when contacted by the RJ to comment on their low retention recommendation score, have actually advanced this belief, and quite aggressively so at times.
Attorneys are far too busy with their professional and personal lives, and all their real-life problems, etc. Some judges must have a really distorted sense of their own importance if they envision that this type of detailed collusion actually occurs against them.
Most of the time attorneys don't even bother with the survey. the relatively few that do will decide for themselves, only as to their individual survey form, how they wish to score a judge.
But I for one have never had a call from an attorney indicating that he/she is pissed off at a judge and is thus calling scores of attorneys to request they mark down the judge on such survey.
To me that sounds absurd. Or am I wrong and are such calls actually made?
That would really surprise me since, again, the survey is considered so unimportant, relatively speaking, that very few attorneys even concern themselves wit it in the first place.
I haven't been recruited to downgrade any judge in the survey, but when I've discussed certain judges (including the robeitis sufferer from yesterday) with colleagues, I've found that we all generally have the same experience. Though some judges do exhibit favoritism, for the most part the bad ones are universally recognized as bad.
When you made a comment criticizing the appeals court you made a grammatical error (lack of space between punctuation). Your opinion is hereby reversed.
I recall Judge Earl gave a speech (at either NJA or Clark County Bar) where he said that his dad told him the attorneys don't respect you — they respect your robe. In other words do not for one second believe you are a better jurist or a better person than them simply because you won your election.
Tell that to the DAs and PDs. Or larger firms. Those 10-20 attorneys per firm can make a difference when only 300 attorneys respond to the Judging the Judges out of 6,000. The "comments" are identical. Meah. It is what it is.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2021 7:12 pm
11:07. Your (lengthy) post would otherwise sound quite reasonable, but here's the problem.
As odd as it may sound, I actually did encounter an occasion where an attorney tried to recruit me, and others, to give low scores to a judge he despised.
I did not because I did not share his view of such judge.
So, if such overtures were made to me, I assume they've been made to others.
Sounds kind of vindictive and childish, but sometimes there are very few ways an attorney can fight back or offer any input about a judge they find seriously substandard, so they resort to somewhat desperate means.
However, even so, they should just rate the judge from their own perspective, and not recruit others for a pile on.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2021 8:28 pm
For Those Who Believe, No Proof is Necessary. For Those Who Don’t Believe, No Proof is Possible. Eh?
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2021 8:43 pm
At Walgreens on Eastern and Bonanza for first Covid shot. Very disorganized. I am surprised since I have a verified appointment.
Smith's all over the valley have lots of appointments (Moderna) – much easier than Walgreen's to get the appointment scheduled, at least it was for me.
School districts usually don't get 11A immunity (California is a big exception). The Ninth Circuit has said that CCSD doesn't get 11A immunity. 303 F.3d at 1144.
Shitty parent from yesterday. Played Apples-To-Apples with the kids last night after dinner. They thought it was hilarious.
One child having some pretty extraordinary problems this morning related to remote learning while I try to practice law.
One day at a time I guess.
Yayyy You! 🙂 Yes, one day at a time. And missing one day of school never killed anybody either! I've been there with the zoom failures. Hang in there!
Correction: Not-So-Shitty Parent after all.
12:41 from yesterday here. That's awesome that you took some time with your kids last night! So now the question to ask yourself to make it a little easier to do the same tonight-is your work day significantly harder because you took that time? If not, make the same time tonight because now you know you can.
At night everyone at our house (including me) wants to mind-meld with their devices, then go to bed. I have been making it a point to grab a board game, and pound out at least one game — usually quick ones like Munchkin, Fluxx, or Code Names.
What's with the fascination in the reporting with PUA claims? How about straight UI claims?
I had to look up Judge Jasmin Lilly-Spells to see whether or not she is a Clark County judge. Can't keep track anymore without a program.
There was commentary yesterday about black robe fever already taking effect with a few newly minted judges.
I have earned that there is no effective antidote to robeitis.
Arrogant and intemperate judges are seldom humbled even if they encounter high reversal rates, low Judging The Judges survey scoes, well-supported election challengers, etc.
The reason they don't seem affected by any of that, and none of it causes them to become somewhat more humbled and grounded, is that they rationalize all of it away.
By way of example, they simply will argue that they got it right and that the "clueless" appellate courts, that reversed them, got it wrong.(As an aside, we of course all concede that appellate courts will get it wrong a certain percentage of the time).
But the way they rationalize away low survey scores on the Judging The Judges is a particularly interesting and convoluted.
One argument they advance is that the survey is totally unscientific and fatally flawed.
And, truth be told, that particular point may have some arguable merit.
But their main attack, and rationalization, for low survey scores is quite humorous, if one truly reflects on it. They claim that an isolated disgruntled attorney, who lost and rightfully so in the eyes of the judge, called scores of random attorneys and had them grade down said judge on the survey.
Now, let's examine that for a moment. You may have your own reasons for providing negative survey input about a particular judge. But the concept that someone would call a bunch of attorneys and ask them to grade down a judge because that attorney is pissed off at said judge is simply preposterous. And yet some low-scoring judges, when contacted by the RJ to comment on their low retention recommendation score, have actually advanced this belief, and quite aggressively so at times.
Attorneys are far too busy with their professional and personal lives, and all their real-life problems, etc. Some judges must have a really distorted sense of their own importance if they envision that this type of detailed collusion actually occurs against them.
Most of the time attorneys don't even bother with the survey. the relatively few that do will decide for themselves, only as to their individual survey form, how they wish to score a judge.
But I for one have never had a call from an attorney indicating that he/she is pissed off at a judge and is thus calling scores of attorneys to request they mark down the judge on such survey.
To me that sounds absurd. Or am I wrong and are such calls actually made?
That would really surprise me since, again, the survey is considered so unimportant, relatively speaking, that very few attorneys even concern themselves wit it in the first place.
I haven't been recruited to downgrade any judge in the survey, but when I've discussed certain judges (including the robeitis sufferer from yesterday) with colleagues, I've found that we all generally have the same experience. Though some judges do exhibit favoritism, for the most part the bad ones are universally recognized as bad.
When you made a comment criticizing the appeals court you made a grammatical error (lack of space between punctuation). Your opinion is hereby reversed.
I recall Judge Earl gave a speech (at either NJA or Clark County Bar) where he said that his dad told him the attorneys don't respect you — they respect your robe. In other words do not for one second believe you are a better jurist or a better person than them simply because you won your election.
I believe Judge Earl's father said that. Judge Earl did not ever follow that adage however.
Completely disagree with this!! Judge Earle was Solid.
Tell that to the DAs and PDs. Or larger firms. Those 10-20 attorneys per firm can make a difference when only 300 attorneys respond to the Judging the Judges out of 6,000. The "comments" are identical. Meah. It is what it is.
11:07. Your (lengthy) post would otherwise sound quite reasonable, but here's the problem.
As odd as it may sound, I actually did encounter an occasion where an attorney tried to recruit me, and others, to give low scores to a judge he despised.
I did not because I did not share his view of such judge.
So, if such overtures were made to me, I assume they've been made to others.
Sounds kind of vindictive and childish, but sometimes there are very few ways an attorney can fight back or offer any input about a judge they find seriously substandard, so they resort to somewhat desperate means.
However, even so, they should just rate the judge from their own perspective, and not recruit others for a pile on.
For Those Who Believe, No Proof is Necessary. For Those Who Don’t Believe, No Proof is Possible. Eh?
At Walgreens on Eastern and Bonanza for first Covid shot. Very disorganized. I am surprised since I have a verified appointment.
Smith's all over the valley have lots of appointments (Moderna) – much easier than Walgreen's to get the appointment scheduled, at least it was for me.
ZERO chance that I take that shot. Z – E – R – O.
Y-A-W-N…zzz…
When you join the million dollar advocates club, the victory is more than moral.
The firm thinking they have a solid copyright infringement case against CCSD needs to read Allen v. Cooper, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 994 (2020).
School districts usually don't get 11A immunity (California is a big exception). The Ninth Circuit has said that CCSD doesn't get 11A immunity. 303 F.3d at 1144.
I stand corrected. CCSD better be worried.
So has everyone but me heard by now that Jay Young is the new EJDC Discovery Commissioner? Congrats, Jay.