Clark County Public Defender Christy Craig is calling attention to Nevada’s lagging efforts at getting treatment for mentally ill offenders. [RJ]
North Las Vegas Municipal Judge Catherine Ramsey (already at odds with the city) has sued the city over their duty to defend her in a lawsuit against her for wrongful termination. [RJ]
Former Boulder City Police Chief Tom Finn, who was ousted over a year ago, is still speaking out Boulder City public officials, including City Attorney Dave Olsen (he who was an expert witness for his son in an unlawful arrest action against the city). [8NewsNow]
Meanwhile, another (tangential) figure in the Boulder City picture, Stephen “Bowtie” Stubbs, is the defendant in an alleged malpractice action. [EJDC Case No. A-14-703315-C)
Lucy Flores got the sole endorsement for Lieutenant Governor from the Latin Chamber of Commerce–after preliminary reports that they would endorse both Flores and her opponent, Mark Hutchison. [RJ]
I went to law school with Bowtie and always expected a lawsuit like this to come. I just didn't expect that someone would trust him with advice related to millions of dollars.
Being sued for malpractice probably isn't as much fun as having his idiot Mormon wife baking cookies for the judges to knock his client's speeding ticket down to a reasonable fine.
Interesting article. Do we have an ethical obligation to not put admissions that we know aren't true ("admit that the ranch was not open")? And then does Rule 11/37 forbid us from using the admission by omission into future dispositive motions?
If RFAs were limited to their intended purpose of disposing of undisputed facts instead of the common practice of "Admit your legal arguments are bullshit," I'd agree with you.
Guest
Anonymous
July 29, 2014 8:38 pm
NVSC issued an opinion a few years ago, can't recall name though. In it, the court mentioned it's disdain for resolving cases on technicalities, and not on the merits. I recall it was a business lit case, but not sure. Would love if someone had the cite. @12:41, great ethics issue RE: completely bogus admission requests.
I was going to say that Kuehn should be putting his malpractice insurance on notice, but then I read this: "Kuehn lost his contract with Nye County earlier this year after refusing to buy malpractice insurance." So it sounds like the poor farmer lady is going to be stuck holding the bill.
Guest
Anonymous
July 29, 2014 9:37 pm
I don't understand the liability loophole for ranchers. Why in today's society where everyone else is responsible under the law for their actions (or in-actions) are these ranchers not liable? If you own cows and let them wonder any where they want, why are you not liable for harm the animal causes. Moreover, cows are freaking huge. If you hit one with your car, you're probably going to be seriously injured if not killed. Sorry, but I think ranchers ought to be liable for the harm their animals cause.
Cows are large, slow-moving animals. If you hit one, it's because you're a dumbass who wasn't paying attention to the road or was driving faster than your ability to stop.
I went to law school with Bowtie and always expected a lawsuit like this to come. I just didn't expect that someone would trust him with advice related to millions of dollars.
The guy is a certified goof.
Being sued for malpractice probably isn't as much fun as having his idiot Mormon wife baking cookies for the judges to knock his client's speeding ticket down to a reasonable fine.
What about this cautionary tale about responding to RFAs? http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/conflicted-judge-s-decision-looms-rancher-lawsuit
And the lawyer who blew the case had the Nye County contract to provide indigent defense for years.
Interesting article. Do we have an ethical obligation to not put admissions that we know aren't true ("admit that the ranch was not open")? And then does Rule 11/37 forbid us from using the admission by omission into future dispositive motions?
That's a loaded question because you use the word "know." The whole point of discovery is to get information from admissible sources.
If RFAs were limited to their intended purpose of disposing of undisputed facts instead of the common practice of "Admit your legal arguments are bullshit," I'd agree with you.
NVSC issued an opinion a few years ago, can't recall name though. In it, the court mentioned it's disdain for resolving cases on technicalities, and not on the merits. I recall it was a business lit case, but not sure. Would love if someone had the cite. @12:41, great ethics issue RE: completely bogus admission requests.
"its"
I know right!
I was going to say that Kuehn should be putting his malpractice insurance on notice, but then I read this: "Kuehn lost his contract with Nye County earlier this year after refusing to buy malpractice insurance." So it sounds like the poor farmer lady is going to be stuck holding the bill.
I don't understand the liability loophole for ranchers. Why in today's society where everyone else is responsible under the law for their actions (or in-actions) are these ranchers not liable? If you own cows and let them wonder any where they want, why are you not liable for harm the animal causes. Moreover, cows are freaking huge. If you hit one with your car, you're probably going to be seriously injured if not killed. Sorry, but I think ranchers ought to be liable for the harm their animals cause.
Maybe because the ranchers and cows were there before the roads and so open range laws are the compromise.
Cows are large, slow-moving animals. If you hit one, it's because you're a dumbass who wasn't paying attention to the road or was driving faster than your ability to stop.