Sandstorms

  • Law

  • The Supreme Court rejected Las Vegas Sands’ attempt to remove Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez as trial judge. [RJ; Las Vegas Sun]
  • Sands has agreed to pay a $2 million fine as result of a complaint from the Ganing Control Board. [Vegas Inc.]
  • The Court also ruled against an effort to repeal the commerce tax. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Magistrate Leen issued a temporary protective order on evidence in the Bundy matter. [RJ]
41 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 3:52 pm

Nevada Supreme Court just ruled that casinos could 86 someone off the property for any non-discriminatory/unlawful reason.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
May 12, 2016 4:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I see nothing earth-shattering or surprising about that decision. It is private property and there was no evidence of exclusion based on race, etc. I think it is interesting that neither side chose to introduce evidence of the reason why the guy was 86'd to begin with. Now with all of that said, Bob Nersesian can be a pain, but I am glad he is around to keep them somewhat honest when it comes to things like physically detaining people, photographing them for the "book" and that sort of thing.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 4:32 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You'd be right that the decision wouldn't necessarily surprise anyone but it is a big win for the casinos. Being able to get a dismissal at the outset of litigation is huge. As for neither side introducing the reason for the 86, my guess is that Plaintiff didn't want to introduce it in the pleadings and Defendant couldn't argue any reason in a motion to dismiss. it actually works out to be a cleaner decision because there won't be attempts to distinguish the holding based upon the reason for the boot.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 7:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This is the majority rule. Nersesian admits that is the Majority Rule but was asking the Court to deviate from it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 7:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I actually find myself agreeing with Pickering's dissent when it comes to conventioneers. Common law didn't allow innkeeps to exclude without cause, and to the extent they wanted to exclude, it was their burden to show why the individual should be kept out. If you want to participate in a convention, you don't get to pick where it's located, and the market doesn't allow for a competing convention in another meeting center. For that convention, that hotel holds a monopoly.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 8:31 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Snell heading downtown to new digs.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 9:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:17 – Pickering's dissent is logical when considering the issues in a vacuum, but tested against the realities of casino operations it does not hold up. Casinos are surely not in the business of 86ing people without a good reason. Further, the Nevada statute gives casinos the ability to boot people off their premises for any non-discriminatory or unlawful reason. Given that the casino premises is not strictly limited to the gaming floor, it's pretty clear that the law abrogates the common law to the extent that an innkeeper wouldn't be able to keep guests out without cause. Finally, if there was ever an issue where an 86ed person had to attend a convention/wedding at a hotel, it would be up to that person to reach out to the hotel and attempt a reconciliation or agreement. If the hotel still refuses to allow a person in, then there may be an issue, but the Court was not faced with that scenario.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Uh, that was exactly the scenario before the Court. Doc gets 86'd from Harrah's hotel in MS, but wants to attend conference at Paris Las Vegas. So he contacts Caesars and is told he essentially can't attend any conferences held at any Caesars property ever again. Or even properties owned by someone else, but only managed by Caesars.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Remember when the bar exam was done in a casino. Wouldn't that be a great fact pattern?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 5:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The Hacienda

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 4:02 pm

Blog is dead

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 5:40 pm

I hear Snell and Wilmer are moving downtown.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 5:59 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The new ghetto-fabulous theme. Watch for the managing partner's new caddy with spinners. Feel the Byrne.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 2:20 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Is Snell and Wilmer still around?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 5:45 pm

Las Vegas Law premieres tonight. Who is watching?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 6:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I have it set to record. I prefer to delay watching things by 20 mins so I can fast forward through the 15-20 mins of commercials.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 7:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

They copied the name of Bucky's reality show from years ago. No originality.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 7:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I remove myself from the reality of dealing with jerks in the profession after and during hours. WTH would I want to watch a reality show on my off time, the few that I get, about colleagues?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 10:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What network?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:31 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Investigation Discovery (ID)

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Las Vegas Law is on Investigation Discovery (Channels 104 and 1104 on Cox) at 10:00 p.m.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 6:26 pm
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 6:42 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yep, sure 'whistleblower'. Once a victim, always a victim?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 3:23 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Didn't this nut give up yet. I know anonymous comment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 7:15 pm

Who is running against Judge Baucum, I want to support her opponent.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Shana Bachman-don't know anything about her.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 5:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

PD

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 12, 2016 2:46 am
Reply to  Anonymous
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 12, 2016 2:49 am
Reply to  Anonymous
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:24 pm

Shana Bachman

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 12, 2016 11:39 pm

Anyone else hear rumors about a judge and local criminal attorney?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 4:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Don't even go there. It isn't true and you don't want to spread it further than it already has gotten. They are just friends

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 4:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

How about somebody mention which judge and local criminal attorney are just friends?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 4:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

At 9:02: so not true! Unless "friends" with benefits counts! Does his wife of MANY years have a clue?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 5:13 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Its no different than the Judge and the CD Attorney which everyone knew about for years.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 6:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

At 10:13 so of course that makes it ok?!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 7:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:13 here– OK? No it's not OK. I don't have a Judge giving me Black Robe Fever and until I get mine, I don't want anyone getting theirs!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 2:24 am

I would like to hear this rumor can you please repeat it?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2016 4:24 am

Yeah, no shit, don't leave us hanging. Do tell!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 16, 2016 4:23 pm

Oh wow, just saw this. Yeah, this is not a rumor, it is a fact. Friend of a friend of said criminal defense attorney who told me.