- Quickdraw McLaw
- 31 Comments
- 130 Views
- The federal court system and the Republican quest to reshape the judiciary. [TNI]
- Some records about the October 1 shooting were unsealed, maybe more today? [Fox5Vegas]
Reshape
- Law
- Posted on 7 years ago
Most Voted Comments
Active Comment Threads
Recent Comments
Other than a nuclear war the court appointments will be the most destructive thing Trump does while President. Funny part is most of Trump supporters will be the ones hurt by destroying the justice system.
Perfect example is dispute over HOA foreclosure between 9th Circuit and Nevada Supreme Court. Certified Questions of law was denied by Nevada Supreme Court as of today… Case 72931: The Court finds that certification to the Nevada Supreme Court is warranted in this case because the pending claims and counterclaims may be resolved, in part, by a determination of whether NRS 116.31163-116.31168 and, by incorporation, NRS 107.090 required associations to
provide notice to the recorded beneficiary of a deed of trust, which is subordinate to the super-priority portion of an association lien for assessments under NRS 116.3116(2), and what notice must be provided. See SFR, 334 P.3d at 419. While the Ninth Circuit has construed the statute
and determined that it is unconstitutional as "opt-in" only, this Court is cognizant that it did so in the absence of controlling precedent or construction from the Nevada Supreme Court. And, where there is no controlling precedent from the state, and the interpretation of state law is controlling, then the federal court's determination is controlling. See Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 236
(1944). However, if the state court disapproves of the interpretation given by the federal court, then the federal courts must follow the interpretation by the state court. See id.; see also Owen v.
United States, 713 F.2d 1461, 1464 (9th Cir.1983) (a federal court's construction of state law is "only binding in the absence of any subsequent indication from the [state appellate] courts that our
interpretation was incorrect."). As recognized by the Ninth Circuit, "[i]t is solely within the province of the state courts to authoritatively construe state legislation." Cal. Teachers Ass'n v.
State Bd. Of Educ., 271 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). This is why questions of state law should be resolved in the first instance by the state's highest court. Huddleston, 322 U.S. at 237. Because
the Nevada Supreme Court declined to reach the issue of notice in Saticoy Bay, there is no controlling precedent from that Court. A decision by the Nevada Supreme Court on the instant
issue would provide this Court with guidance as to how to address the issue of notice, including
actual notice, and how to apply Bourne Valley in this case. Additionally, disputes over the scope
of discovery may be impacted by the answer to the question.
Because the relevant facts are set forth above, the Court addresses whether the issue "may
be determinative of the cause" as well as the remaining five requirements.
Judiciary system must be re shaped because of examples like that. Discretion of US Supreme Court to choose what cases they will take makes injustice going on in so many cases.
Discretion of the supreme court is wrong in your opinion? So shoukd the US Supreme Court hear every case appealled?
The Nevada Supreme Court lives on delay, deferral, demurring and disorganization. None of this is a surprise.
I believe that Federal Courts should be given rights to address cases that violate Constitution or preempted laws and Private parties should be allowed to bring such lawsuits. Otherwise because Supreme Court choose what to review, many intentionally made mistakes by State Supreme Court will never get fixed. Of course it is up to Congress to resolve that issue.
8:56,
Where you sleeping the numerous days when your Civ Pro and Con Law profs covered whether a federal court can hear a case based on a Constitutional issue? Hint: the answer is yes. Yes it can.
8:56 read the article. TNI does a good job explaining how the US Supreme Court heard NV Supreme Court decisions. The writs are usually denied, but they get filed.
8:56,
Move on and get that evaluation.
8:56 You are wrong.
ARMSTRONG ET AL. v. EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC., ET AL., (2015) Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding that the Supremacy Clause does not confer a private right of action. Also if you lose in state court and if your due process was violated Rooker–Feldman doctrine will not allow you to bring action in Federal Court. Your only option is US Supreme Court
Ninth Circuit: ok, dummy; you disagreed w/our ruling in Bourne? So explain this then (if you can, lamebrain).
NSC: *middle finger* You're not the boss of us!
Was there an actual denial of the certified question? I didn't see anything like that in the 72931 case that was referenced. Last filing is dated 1/8/18 and is a change of address.
8:56, must be Boyd 13’
I wish Judge Harter had run in a different Supreme Court race than the one he chose.
However, even if he is not successful at the race, it will really elevate his name recognition for when he runs to retain his current seat two years form now. So, viewing it that way, I suppose it's is a win/win for him.
Well, 10:23,not really, because I doubt he will raise or spend very much. This is particularly true once he sees that the incumbent is capable of raising over one million bucks. Once that happens, I doubt Harter will want to throw good money after bad. Once he spends his first $30,0000(probably a lot of it contributed by himself) and he sees his opponent having weeks where she raises tens of thousands of dollars, Harter will probably, for all intents and purposes, stop spending.
Admittedly, this is speculation on my part, but I consider it somewhat informed speculation. Historically speaking,in Nevada, when a lawyer, or even a sitting judge, takes on an incumbent Supreme Court Justice, it goes the way I mentioned.
But there is a notable exception–when Judge Saitta took on Justice Becker, Saitta had enormous support and funding behind her. But that race was kind of an aberration. Supreme Court incumbents, when not unopposed, usually win by enormous margins and outspend their opponents many times over–even when the opponent is a sitting judge.
On the other hand, every election season there are always a few real surprises.
Like Justice has a name getting elected.
Exactly.
If Justice has a name it would be something like Holmes, Brandeis or Warren.
It would not be a young attorney named Harmony.
That said, it sounds like she's doing okay on the bench. At least
that's what I heard. I don't practice in Justice Court.
To 10:49. I assume you meant to type "once he spends his first $30,000. Because I'm sure he would not be willing or able to soak $300,000. into the race–not when he sees the incumbent is on track to spend north of a million.
Can the shock jock, aka Dave Thomas give it a rest on trying to scare peeps into running against the inept, I mean incumbants?
Since filing has closed, I really doubt that he has a motivation to be posting anything of that nature.
So, if some of these postings are not to our liking, it seems clear that someone else is posting them.
Why is it you think nobody ran against either of the new district court judge Jones’ and yet ran against Bailus
Houston, this is the commAnd center. We have a problem.
Uh, what?
Analogy.
I'm half analyst, half therapist.
Interesting that a pop culture reference that was safe enough for TV has been deleted from this blog. As always, I recognize that the people who run the blog have the power to delete whatever they want, but I wonder if they did so in this case without recognizing the reference, or in spite of it?
Dear Clerk's Office. I know yesterday was a holiday. But if I filed a Motion at 9:02 am on Friday, and it is now 2:02 pm on Tuesday, you should have processed the Motion by now. 20 years ago I would have showed up (ok sent Legal Wings), you would have sent me over to the Master Calendar window where Elderly Amy or Gruff Cliff would have set my Motion in a couple of minutes and the rest would be history. That it is taking you multiple days to process a relatively straightforward Motion tells me that your system remains broken.
Call the Grierson.
2:06 times 1000.
Did anyone else see the "Make Cinco de Mayo Great Again" page in Richard Harris' latest magazine?
He sucks.