My thoughts as well. I was in front of him many times in the 90's. Although I never felt like there was an overt lack of impartiality, he was never a favorite. But may he rest in peace.
Huffaker wasn't a bad guy. The kind of impropriety discussed in that article was hardly rare in Las Vegas courts during those times. There were a lot worse judicial offenders than Huffaker. The worst thing that maybe anyone could say about Huffaker was that he was a little, let's say, deferential if you were a member of a certain religious body. But that was more common at that time also than it is now. Rest In Peace
Guest
Anonymous
April 18, 2022 6:14 pm
Mid career attorney. I liked Huffaker. He is better than most on the bench now.
Guest
Anonymous
April 18, 2022 6:46 pm
Judge Huffaker was ornery on the Bench, sometimes downright angry. He got into the mediation business, but he walked away from it and his office lease. Disagree that he was better than most on the Bench now. I seem to recall one time in the 90s he came out to the bench with attorneys for one party coming out with him, bad look. Rest in Piece
11:46–I appeared before him most during his mid-career period and his demeanor seemed pretty good. So, I assume him becoming ornery occurred more toward the later stages of his career.
I had no problem with him on Criminal cases, or most Civil cases. But when he was a Senior Judge after he retired, and would sometimes serve at Family Court, it did not seem like an ideal fit.
But overall, I agree with 11:44 that he was better than many currently on the bench.
Guest
Anonymous
April 18, 2022 7:00 pm
Rest in Peace Judge Huffaker. Prayers and thoughts for his family. Today is not the day to evaluate him as a judge. I will just say that I can confirm from having appeared in front of him that he was a judge.
Guest
Anonymous
April 18, 2022 7:29 pm
(I'm not involved in the case just read the article)
The injured party said he needed assistance when he was not in court, defense counsel showed video of him walking to the courthouse with his dog and not having issues walking – in contradiction to his statements. The jury didn't believe him, probably discounted the truthfulness of his other testimony because of that misrepresentation, and he lost.
Not involved in the David Copperfield case, however, it was clearly a miscarriage of justice. Reason–the Plaintiff was under the control of the Copperfield act and the hotel. Plaintiff was rushed through dangerous conditions. The Plaintiff was in fact injured. Hotel/Copperfield had duty to warn and make safe. The surveillance no doubt helped the defendants. However, with brain injuries you have good and bad days. Good and bad moments. The medical condition of every plaintiff is exaggerated and dramatized (except when you have a paraplegic or quadraplegic). There was clearly liability, injury and damages. I used to do insurance defense. Most of the surveillance was worthless. Always advised my personal clients when you file an injury case remember you are on stage and don't do things that make you look foolish. This plaintiff may have been the client from hell but was still entitled to compensation. Trials are so risky still even for plaintiffs.
I can appreciate 1:21's comments, and it sounds (just from reading a bit) that Plaintiff may well have merited receiving an award.
But playing up your injury to the jury, needing assistance every time you get up, when you can go and walk your dog around just fine? I believe that invokes the legal maxim of "Fuck around and find out"
Guest
Anonymous
April 18, 2022 7:29 pm
Re Copperfield: I think I fall in with the majority–if you're hobbling around the courtroom in front of the jury, then videos of you walking normally outside go a long way to assessing your credibility.
I'm intrigued by the distinction in the dissent as far as behavior on the stand versus on the way to the stand – it does seem that the incident on hamming up the injury cast a shadow on the entire case. I like when Stiglich called the majority out for the hornbook cite, too.
Guest
Kriesnendu Houly
April 18, 2022 8:02 pm
Nice article. Thanks for given the information. I earn from qualifying purchases. Please read our disclosure for more info.
As far as Huffaker, anybody appear before him?
Let's not speak ill of the dead, but…
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/1997/jun/07/attorneys-question-impartiality-of-judge-in-mirage/
My thoughts as well. I was in front of him many times in the 90's. Although I never felt like there was an overt lack of impartiality, he was never a favorite. But may he rest in peace.
Huffaker wasn't a bad guy. The kind of impropriety discussed in that article was hardly rare in Las Vegas courts during those times. There were a lot worse judicial offenders than Huffaker. The worst thing that maybe anyone could say about Huffaker was that he was a little, let's say, deferential if you were a member of a certain religious body. But that was more common at that time also than it is now. Rest In Peace
Mid career attorney. I liked Huffaker. He is better than most on the bench now.
Judge Huffaker was ornery on the Bench, sometimes downright angry. He got into the mediation business, but he walked away from it and his office lease. Disagree that he was better than most on the Bench now. I seem to recall one time in the 90s he came out to the bench with attorneys for one party coming out with him, bad look. Rest in Piece
11:46–I appeared before him most during his mid-career period and his demeanor seemed pretty good. So, I assume him becoming ornery occurred more toward the later stages of his career.
I had no problem with him on Criminal cases, or most Civil cases. But when he was a Senior Judge after he retired, and would sometimes serve at Family Court, it did not seem like an ideal fit.
But overall, I agree with 11:44 that he was better than many currently on the bench.
Rest in Peace Judge Huffaker. Prayers and thoughts for his family. Today is not the day to evaluate him as a judge. I will just say that I can confirm from having appeared in front of him that he was a judge.
(I'm not involved in the case just read the article)
The injured party said he needed assistance when he was not in court, defense counsel showed video of him walking to the courthouse with his dog and not having issues walking – in contradiction to his statements. The jury didn't believe him, probably discounted the truthfulness of his other testimony because of that misrepresentation, and he lost.
Got it.
Not involved in the David Copperfield case, however, it was clearly a miscarriage of justice. Reason–the Plaintiff was under the control of the Copperfield act and the hotel. Plaintiff was rushed through dangerous conditions. The Plaintiff was in fact injured. Hotel/Copperfield had duty to warn and make safe. The surveillance no doubt helped the defendants. However, with brain injuries you have good and bad days. Good and bad moments. The medical condition of every plaintiff is exaggerated and dramatized (except when you have a paraplegic or quadraplegic). There was clearly liability, injury and damages. I used to do insurance defense. Most of the surveillance was worthless. Always advised my personal clients when you file an injury case remember you are on stage and don't do things that make you look foolish. This plaintiff may have been the client from hell but was still entitled to compensation. Trials are so risky still even for plaintiffs.
I can't imagine trying a case for seven weeks just to get through the liability. I'm dead on my feet after seven days.
I can appreciate 1:21's comments, and it sounds (just from reading a bit) that Plaintiff may well have merited receiving an award.
But playing up your injury to the jury, needing assistance every time you get up, when you can go and walk your dog around just fine? I believe that invokes the legal maxim of "Fuck around and find out"
Re Copperfield: I think I fall in with the majority–if you're hobbling around the courtroom in front of the jury, then videos of you walking normally outside go a long way to assessing your credibility.
I'm intrigued by the distinction in the dissent as far as behavior on the stand versus on the way to the stand – it does seem that the incident on hamming up the injury cast a shadow on the entire case. I like when Stiglich called the majority out for the hornbook cite, too.
Nice article. Thanks for given the information. I earn from qualifying purchases. Please read our disclosure for more info.
please check Out.
Las Vegas Captions