This is another example of political figures and those in power absolutely shitting on civil practice. “We can’t let her fuck up personal liberties, so we’ll let her fuck up assets and property.”
Point is: she is a judge. So she has to fuck something up.
Guest
Anonymous
May 16, 2025 9:23 am
How much more damage does Ballou have to do? Haven’t we endured enough? The joke become progressively less funny with each passing day that she remains on the bench and collects a paycheck. When a dog has rabies, you put it out of its misery.
I guess the publicity makes me concerned that several well qualified (or at least not patently unqualified) people will run against her and the Hon Erika Ballou will be re elected as first alphabetic name on the ballot, incumbent and name recognition. John Q Public will likely remember the name in the back of the head but just as likely not remember why they remember it.
Or, hear me out, the candidates can change their names to ensure they appear first on the ballot, and to also cover any tracks related to their overall qualifications to sit on the bench.
Appointed judges? I practiced in a neighboring state which has an appointment system. You wind up with political/DEI appointees who belong to pressure groups that lobby on their behalf. You also wind up with Judges who have never practiced law and are totally clueless. Then you are unable to get them off the bench because they are appointed. So you are stuck with an unqualified judge all the more. At least with an election the bad judges can be voted out. Wasn’t Halverson voted off before she was removed?
Many states that have appointed judges makes them go through retention elections so its not entirely impossible.
Guest
Anonymous
May 16, 2025 9:54 am
I’m sure I’m late to the party on this one, but I just found out that ALL district court judges in Nevada are up for election in 2026 and go on a 6-year election cycle.
So 40ish judicial elections in Clark County 2026, 0 in 2028, 0 in 2030, another 40 in 2032? This can’t possibly be true, is it?
Please someone link to an article on how this happened.
NV Constitution, Article 6, Section 5. Unlike NV Supreme Court Justices (Section 2) and Court of Appeals Justices (Section 3A), whose terms are staggered, Section 5 contains no provision for staggering the terms. Everyone serves the same 6 year period.
There was a ballot question in 1983 to stagger them, and it was shot down, 58-42.
I always find it funny how year after year the voters reject any kind of commonsense effort to make the courts function more sensibly, like this ballot question and the decadeslong quest to create the court of appeals. Funny in a kind of “you have to laugh to keep from crying” sort of way.
Well when the demographics of voting are skewed so much heavier towards women and women continue to believe that women are underrepresented despite holding down 25 of 32 general district court offices and 18 of 26 Family Court positions.
The best voting advice I ever got 30+ years ago was-when faced with candidates I am completely unfamiliar with-vote for the woman or the person with the foreign (minority) name. It’s the only way to break up the good old boys network.
Now, decades later, women and minorities are in the good old boys network! We did it!
I would like the community consensus on this. We received an MSJ accompanied by an “Appendix” that states that all of the exhibits for the MSJ can be found in DropBox. This works for an ECC Disclosure; dont think this works for a Motion. My opinion is that the Court is not going to go download your exhibits from DropBox and that the exhibits are not actually in court record but would be interested in your perspectives.
I guess they could provide the court with the courtesy binders of the exhibits.
I know this is a logical fallacy but was the firm filing the MSJ a large reputable firm? If so I bet it is fine, if it’s a smaller shop maybe it’s a problem.
I wouldn’t take the position that the motion should be denied on that ground, or solely on that ground. I can only think of one rule bound jurist you may prevail before on that technicality. But likely the court will gloss over it. As to you court record, that’s a better point, and a constant reminder for appellate reasons, make sure your record is complete
The failure to file the MSJ’s exhibits into the record is improper. A court’s local rules control whether the court can consider hyperlinked materials. See, e.g., Jackson v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, 97 F.4th 1343, 1357 n.6 (11th Cir. 2024). If the MSJ’s exhibits exceed 100 pages, EDCR 2.27(b) states that they “must be filed” into the record as a separate appendix.
As OC, do you try to convince the district court that these exhibits aren’t properly before them, or do you just accept that the district court will consider them, and wait until it’s before the NSC and whoops! No record?
From that Eleventh Circuit case, it looks like you should object at the district court level or else the issue might be waived. Maybe just have a three-sentence section in your opposition objecting to the other side relying on exhibits not properly filed into the record under the local rule. The other side will probably file the exhibits into the record after seeing your objection, but if not, it gives you an issue to raise on appeal, if the other side’s motion is successful. Good luck.
The appendix should be filed separately from the points and authorities/motion if it is lengthy. Otherwise you are going to have problems if there is an appeal as those exhibits will not be part of the record.
Isn’t there a Nevada ethics opinion that says something like commercial clouds, like dropbox, are not secure and using them is a violation of the Nevada rules of professional conduct?
Guest
Anonymous
May 16, 2025 1:28 pm
Jay Young and Maggie McLetchie as the first two advertisers on our law blog. How cool! Call me crazy, but I kind of don’t mind watching this evolution of the blog play out.
Very linked and very discussed all weekend. I feel bad for Marjorie
Guest
Anonymous
May 17, 2025 7:32 am
Maria Gall is getting a split docket and 300 of her civil cases are reassigned to Ballou. Gall is down to 300 civil cases now and has no criminal experience but will be responsible for people life and liberty. Ballou has a 1000 civil cases now. This is what the chief judges do — refuse to do their job and hold judges accountable. Instead they issue AOs and try to bury the judge to push them out. Some judges have calendar once a week. Some have four day weekends. Others have calendar four or five days a week and bust their behinds. One split docket department has 20 civil cases and one has 5. Why are they given a split docket then? To obligate you to feel like you have to give them money during campaign season because they handle civil cases. Wake up people.
I’ve only had one case (civil) with Judge Gall. She is so good. She runs one of the most organized departments. She is reasonable and keeps all parties and attorneys on task without being a tyrant. In fact, she is a very kind person. She is always very well prepared. It is a tragedy she is being wasted on a criminal docket, a double tragedy that it’s because of Ballou.
Those are not split docket departments. The two you mention are all criminal, but have “some” civil case #s because of post-conviction writs of habeas corpus, which receive a civil case number. Quit trying to make everything AA conspiracy.
Oh FFS. So now I am going to have to deal with Ballou on more civil cases where she literally has no idea what she is doing?
Seriously. How long is this sideshow going to continue?!
Couldn’t this be said about a large portion of the current bench? Bunch of people that have no clue
This is another example of political figures and those in power absolutely shitting on civil practice. “We can’t let her fuck up personal liberties, so we’ll let her fuck up assets and property.”
Point is: she is a judge. So she has to fuck something up.
How much more damage does Ballou have to do? Haven’t we endured enough? The joke become progressively less funny with each passing day that she remains on the bench and collects a paycheck. When a dog has rabies, you put it out of its misery.
I guess the publicity makes me concerned that several well qualified (or at least not patently unqualified) people will run against her and the Hon Erika Ballou will be re elected as first alphabetic name on the ballot, incumbent and name recognition. John Q Public will likely remember the name in the back of the head but just as likely not remember why they remember it.
Or, hear me out, the candidates can change their names to ensure they appear first on the ballot, and to also cover any tracks related to their overall qualifications to sit on the bench.
Wait, that would never happen here…
Disregard.
YR you suggesting? AA really ethical candidate would not do that
Comment of the day. AA+
Yeah just Leavitt alone
Until she starts forcing the Marshalls to give foot massages, not much can happen. IYKYK.
I know
I volunteer to give her a foot massage.
Ballou is the poster child for why judges should be appointed.
*a* poster child.
Appointed judges? I practiced in a neighboring state which has an appointment system. You wind up with political/DEI appointees who belong to pressure groups that lobby on their behalf. You also wind up with Judges who have never practiced law and are totally clueless. Then you are unable to get them off the bench because they are appointed. So you are stuck with an unqualified judge all the more. At least with an election the bad judges can be voted out. Wasn’t Halverson voted off before she was removed?
Many states that have appointed judges makes them go through retention elections so its not entirely impossible.
I’m sure I’m late to the party on this one, but I just found out that ALL district court judges in Nevada are up for election in 2026 and go on a 6-year election cycle.
So 40ish judicial elections in Clark County 2026, 0 in 2028, 0 in 2030, another 40 in 2032? This can’t possibly be true, is it?
Please someone link to an article on how this happened.
NV Constitution, Article 6, Section 5. Unlike NV Supreme Court Justices (Section 2) and Court of Appeals Justices (Section 3A), whose terms are staggered, Section 5 contains no provision for staggering the terms. Everyone serves the same 6 year period.
There was a ballot question in 1983 to stagger them, and it was shot down, 58-42.
I always find it funny how year after year the voters reject any kind of commonsense effort to make the courts function more sensibly, like this ballot question and the decadeslong quest to create the court of appeals. Funny in a kind of “you have to laugh to keep from crying” sort of way.
The revelation from 2020 was that voters, when overwhelmed with so many choices, just pick female candidates.
Well when the demographics of voting are skewed so much heavier towards women and women continue to believe that women are underrepresented despite holding down 25 of 32 general district court offices and 18 of 26 Family Court positions.
The best voting advice I ever got 30+ years ago was-when faced with candidates I am completely unfamiliar with-vote for the woman or the person with the foreign (minority) name. It’s the only way to break up the good old boys network.
Now, decades later, women and minorities are in the good old boys network! We did it!
You did what?
Certainly not advance meritocracy.
Can you define meritocracy?
Nope. Last time I used that tactic, I voted for Halvorson. Learned my lesson.
UNTIL THERE ARE NINE! RIP RBG.
And then what?
Thanks for fixing that banner ad.
The customer is sometimes right!
I would like the community consensus on this. We received an MSJ accompanied by an “Appendix” that states that all of the exhibits for the MSJ can be found in DropBox. This works for an ECC Disclosure; dont think this works for a Motion. My opinion is that the Court is not going to go download your exhibits from DropBox and that the exhibits are not actually in court record but would be interested in your perspectives.
I guess they could provide the court with the courtesy binders of the exhibits.
I know this is a logical fallacy but was the firm filing the MSJ a large reputable firm? If so I bet it is fine, if it’s a smaller shop maybe it’s a problem.
Small
I wouldn’t take the position that the motion should be denied on that ground, or solely on that ground. I can only think of one rule bound jurist you may prevail before on that technicality. But likely the court will gloss over it. As to you court record, that’s a better point, and a constant reminder for appellate reasons, make sure your record is complete
No it is not in front of Kishner so we will not rely on the rules.
Susan Johnson will deny motions for failure to provide exhibits as well.
The failure to file the MSJ’s exhibits into the record is improper. A court’s local rules control whether the court can consider hyperlinked materials. See, e.g., Jackson v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, 97 F.4th 1343, 1357 n.6 (11th Cir. 2024). If the MSJ’s exhibits exceed 100 pages, EDCR 2.27(b) states that they “must be filed” into the record as a separate appendix.
As OC, do you try to convince the district court that these exhibits aren’t properly before them, or do you just accept that the district court will consider them, and wait until it’s before the NSC and whoops! No record?
From that Eleventh Circuit case, it looks like you should object at the district court level or else the issue might be waived. Maybe just have a three-sentence section in your opposition objecting to the other side relying on exhibits not properly filed into the record under the local rule. The other side will probably file the exhibits into the record after seeing your objection, but if not, it gives you an issue to raise on appeal, if the other side’s motion is successful. Good luck.
The appendix should be filed separately from the points and authorities/motion if it is lengthy. Otherwise you are going to have problems if there is an appeal as those exhibits will not be part of the record.
Isn’t there a Nevada ethics opinion that says something like commercial clouds, like dropbox, are not secure and using them is a violation of the Nevada rules of professional conduct?
Jay Young and Maggie McLetchie as the first two advertisers on our law blog. How cool! Call me crazy, but I kind of don’t mind watching this evolution of the blog play out.
I’m trying to figure out who is going to pop up next.
bets on who the first judge to campaign on this blog will be?
up next: Naqvi
They’ll have to figure out how to add a little section on top of the ad for Naqvi’s hair like his billboards
My money is on Batman.
I’m waiting for the “Legal Elite” ad to pop up….
On the RJ, Gary Guymon is pleading to two felonies and will be disbarred.
Lie. No link. Can’t find.
Very linked and very discussed all weekend. I feel bad for Marjorie
Maria Gall is getting a split docket and 300 of her civil cases are reassigned to Ballou. Gall is down to 300 civil cases now and has no criminal experience but will be responsible for people life and liberty. Ballou has a 1000 civil cases now. This is what the chief judges do — refuse to do their job and hold judges accountable. Instead they issue AOs and try to bury the judge to push them out. Some judges have calendar once a week. Some have four day weekends. Others have calendar four or five days a week and bust their behinds. One split docket department has 20 civil cases and one has 5. Why are they given a split docket then? To obligate you to feel like you have to give them money during campaign season because they handle civil cases. Wake up people.
I’ve only had one case (civil) with Judge Gall. She is so good. She runs one of the most organized departments. She is reasonable and keeps all parties and attorneys on task without being a tyrant. In fact, she is a very kind person. She is always very well prepared. It is a tragedy she is being wasted on a criminal docket, a double tragedy that it’s because of Ballou.
Those are not split docket departments. The two you mention are all criminal, but have “some” civil case #s because of post-conviction writs of habeas corpus, which receive a civil case number. Quit trying to make everything AA conspiracy.
Leavitt and Craig are both “split” dockets. And those are their stats.
Miranda Du rejects US Attorney’s efforts at death penalty after waiving death penalty.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/judge-rejects-prosecutors-attempt-to-seek-death-after-saying-they-wouldnt-3373668/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=recommend