Some Days Are Diamonds

  • Law

  • A law student was among those seriously injured in the shooting. [Above the Law]
  • What will happen with the millions of dollars in donations? [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Judge Jennifer Elliot honored for 10 years of service to dependency mothers drug court. [eighthjdcourt blog]
  • The Supreme Court is issuing several opinions today. [nvcourts]
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 3:38 pm

Anyone else have a problem with Dept. 17 being just a black hole for decisions and orders? Cases languishing without a ruling for months. Submitting orders and not getting them back for months. Dept. XXV is terrible about that also.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 4:56 pm

A bit ironic about Dept.17 because after he was appointed, and ran for retention, a main hallmark of his campaign was efficiency in terms of quick processing of orders, very timely and efficient closing of cases once resolved, etc. He would speak to these matters at public campaign events and would essentially emphasize that his department was a model of efficiency, and was second to none in terms of prompt case closures, and the timely processing of orders, etc.

On one hand,it's hardly unusual for a judicial candidate, or other political candidate, to make generic claims to efficiency and productivity that they really don't live up to. But, in this particular case, what you point out about this judge is puzzling in the sense that in his campaign he dealt with this very narrow issue, and provided specifics(in terms of case closure numbers)and was most proud of his department's record in this regard.

He was very specific and knowledgeable as to the procedures involved. So, if what you say is accurate, he certainly has the knowledge and ability, as does his JEA and Court Clerk, to (presumably) rectify the problem.

Perhaps a little birdie should speak to him in the future.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 5:35 pm

My feeling is that his law clerk is most likely lagging behind. they get new law clerks every august, and depending on how good/smooth the transition goes (as well as how good the law clerk actually is) it can create a backlog on orders.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 7:08 pm

Humphries v NYNY: "Foreseeability based on the failure to exercise due care does not depend solely on notice of knowledge that a specific wrongful act would occur, but instead on 'the basis minimum precautions that are reasonably expected of an [owner or] inkeeper.' . . . NRS 651.015(3)(b), requires a case-by-case analysis of similar wrongful acts, including, without limitation, level of violence, location of attack, and security concerns implicated."

What does this mean in relation to the possible class action vs. Mandalay?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 8:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Should be zero, but with our judges it might not…Humphries is a casino fight case. Pickering dissent does at least a little to remind the district courts below of that those facts are limiting. More interesting question is what Hardesty/Parraguirre would have written if Harvest hadn't occurred — this opinion was certainly signed off prior. If you believe no difference, then that gives you the answer.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 7:46 pm

Attorneys Lien jurisprudence as you know it got turned on its head today in Fredianelli v. Price: "NRS 18.015(4)(b) does not require an affirmative recovery for a retaining lien to attach." Court went on to say that retaining liens can be affirmative enforced and reduced to judgment just like charging liens.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 5, 2017 11:52 pm

Blog is borken.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 6, 2017 4:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This blog could use more borks.