- law dawg
- 89 Comments
- 2835 Views
- CCSD trustee resigns after DA filed petition to have her seat declared vacant. [TNI; Fox5Vegas]
- MIchele Fiore, represented by Michael Sanft, says in court documents that feds labeled her a “domestic terrorist.” [TNI]
- Pac-12 poaches 4 Mountain West Conference schools; UNLV left out. [RJ; News3LV]
- Your auto insurance may be going up. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
- Why are there so many lawyer billboards in Las Vegas? [RJ]
thwack on, thwack off, thwack a doodle doo
Everyone should read the Litchfield decision from last week. The concept that interlocutory orders are just interlocutory and subject to revision died last week. 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 57
“We further clarify that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies even to issues decided in
interlocutory orders, despite language in NRCP 54(b) providing that a district court may revise an order or decision “at any time before” the entry of final judgment. See, e.g., Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. t). Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that “[e]ven if Rule 54(b) allows parties to request district courts to revisit earlier rulings, the moving party
must do so within the strictures of the law of the case doctrine”); Pit River Home & Agric. Coop. Ass’n v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088, 1097 (9th Cir. 1994) (rejecting the “argument that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders which are not immediately appealable”). This approach better comports with the policy considerations outlined in Hsu.
123 Nev. at 630, 173 P.3d at 728 (noting that the law-of-the-case doctrine “serves important policy considerations, including judicial consistency, finality, and protection of the court’s integrity”)
So is this meant to apply squarely on change of judge within the same Court department or is it meant to read more expansively?
That RJ article really did not explain why there are so many lawyer billboards in Las Vegas. It did not even examine lawyer billboards in other states, etc. It just asked 2 PI attorneys why they have billboards – luckily Naqvi explained that “billboards help fight against the idea that people filing injury claims are in it solely for money.” Whether or not this is true, the billboards (and PI advertising) certainly suggest that if you have been in an accident you must sue. I agree it is sometimes necessary but should not be the default. I believe that most PI cases are not frivolous – but many are. It’s cyclical: the more insurance companies deny legitimate pre-lit insurance claims, the more they are sued; while on the other hand, the more frivolous claims /cases filed the more likely insurance companies are to assume borderline and meritorious claims are frivolous and deny as a matter of practice. Yay for PI attorneys and ID attorneys. PI litigation certainly relates to the article re increase in insurance rates: “cost increases are influenced by rising car expenses, insurance fraud, litigation, poor driving habits.”
What’s the solution? Universal healthcare. Now everyone is mad – enjoy your day!
Universal healthcare and self-driving cars/public transit.
This is the real reason we’ll never get universal healthcare.
@10:14
Sounds nice, feels good to say it. But are you willing to pay for these “universal” services? Most of the tax burden will fall on those of us working in good jobs.
Yes. My taxes are low considering the ridiculous amount I get paid to move paper around. I’d happily pay more for a functional universal healthcare system, better schools, more public transit, etc.
Same
Thanks for adding the word “functional”. That takes government out of the running to handle it. Whew, no way we should ever turn something as important a healthcare over to the feckless bureaucrats. Imagine healthcare adminstered by the DMV.
I’d take accessible, affordable healthcare run by the DMV employees over a hospital network run by some fucking idiot billionaire who has enough money to provide free services, but won’t because profit margins and also they want to start a spirits brand and also maybe get into oil and space travel. And also probably has shit employee protections and benefits.
I’d take the total elimination of the health insurance industry and the direct competitive bidding of medical providers giving cash discounts.
Yes. I am.
I, too, am willing to pay more in taxes. Taxes fund public goods. National security? A public good. Schools and education? Public goods. Police and firefighters? Public goods. The health and weal of the population writ large? Yes, a public good.
Fuck yes. We’re already paying for it as part of the current system, it’s just super inefficient.
The cost of uninsureds going to the ER – you’re paying for that. The cost of people declaring BK due to medical debt – you’re paying for that. The societal cost of people not being able to get health care, which leads to negative outcomes, homelessness, more illness, etc. – you’re already paying for that.
Rising tides lift all boats. We make a better society by taking care of everyone, and it makes it better for everyone.
Pretty much every study (including conservative thinktanks) has shown that single-payer will save the US between $2-5 Trillion over 10 years, in addition to, y’know, saving lives and giving people necessary healthcare.
Because Universal Healthcare works so well. Yes, please reduce the level of care on an already inefficient and overburdened system because “we are already paying for it”.
At least under the current system the care that the illegal aliens are receiving for free is of a higher level.
I’ve had four years of experience with the UK healthcare system. The quality of care has been just as good, and sometimes better, than treatment in the U.S. Yes, there are some problems – such as difficulty in getting an appointment with a primary care doctor, but those same problems exist in the U.S., even for those with great health insurance. I can’t tell you how great it is to deal with an emergency without worrying about medical fees bankrupting your family. The removal of that stress is incredible. Tying insurance to employers makes no sense and has proven to be a failure. I would take Universal Healthcare in a heartbeat over the present U.S. system. Removal of the abusive insurance industry and the games playing in the U.S. system would allow us to greatly improve our healthcare system.
Sorry. That is horseshit. I too have extensive experience with the National Health Service (both the ER and later, surgery).
I lucked out with my surgery and had to go private and the care was MUCH better than with my ER visit and my NHS care leading up to my ability and election to go to a private hospital and private doctors and surgeons.
You are just flat out lying and need to be fact checked by David Muir.
Yes give me my current freedom to lose my health insurance based on my employer’s whims.
Let’s go back to when insurers had freedom to deny you coverage for anything that might arguably be a pre-existing condition.
Give me the freedom to choose any provider I want (among the few that my insurer will agree to) and then my doctor can prescribe me any treatment that I need (if my insurer agrees).
The current system sucks. Single payer/medicare for all isn’t perfect, but what we currently have isn’t great at all.
The prescription for the medication that is approved by the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (owned by the insurance company), who sets the price and identifies the pharmacies (owned by the insurance company) where you can get that prescription filled.
Unless some B-school graduate decides to play doctor by requiring a prior authorization. Then when challenged, refers it over to some malpractice-ridden general practitioner for a peer-to-peer whose sole job is to say “no” even when he has no idea what the condition is or what the appropriate methods of treatment are.
Nice pivot from the issue I just discussed. Typical lefty.
lol
lmao, even
Huh?
They have you so turned around and spun up over a fake story, bro.
Bernie Sanders agrees with you.
But consider that the poor are covered by Medicaid, the elderly by Medicare (which is reliably reported to be going broke).
The example of a single payer system is the VA, which is notoriously inefficient and costly.
Contrary to what you say, there is not universal agreement. Big government does nothing well or efficiently. A single payer system will mean that you will have to wait months for a needed procedure. There will be no incentive for competition or innovation or for government to be responsive to patients. (the IRS as an example of how big government is not responsive).
The Bernie Sander proposal would cost an estimated $30 to $40 Trillion over 10 years. The total national debt is currently about $27 T, which we are paying largely by borrowing (by selling T-Bills).
Let Elon AUDIT the Fed!
“The Bernie Sander proposal would cost an estimated $30 to $40 Trillion over 10 years.”
Yes, and under our current system, we’re projected to pay more than $40T over those 10 years. So we would pay less and have more people covered.
And sure, let’s keep defunding government agencies (IRS, VA, etc.) so they can’t hire sufficient people and then complain that the agency is inefficient. I agree there’s government efficiencies, but maybe we should try to fix them rather than trash the whole thing.
Or we can trash them and start over.
Kill the IRS (as an agency)! Fire its employees and go to a flat tax!
Or better yet, TARIFFS!
As far as the VA goes, all vets get placed on Medicaid. permanently.
Its good enough for Obamacare. . . . .
So why would you become a doctor?
Why would you research and bring to market new drugs?
— If wages and prices were set by a government agency.
Since there would be no competition to the government’s single payer entity, doctors wages would be low. There would no financial incentive. There might be some altruistic individuals, but I suspect that most who might have gone into medicine would find something else.
Fix the problems? If you know how, then get your elected representative on board.
Yes, because defense contractors suffer the same maladies.
The ACA is often applauded by some.
So here are the 2024 expected rates for the Silver plan, which only covers 70% of expenses.
Couple, both 35 years old with 2 children ages 10 and 13. Non smokers with no health issues.
-If Household income is $50k, costs is $28/mo. plus a $1,086/mo. subsidy in the form of a tax credit.
-If Household income is $150k, cost is $1,063/mo. no credit.
So who is paying the difference for the lower income group? You are.
Who reaps the benefits of a healthier population? You.
Who saves money by providing preventative care instead of being on the hook for expensive emergency interventions? You.
Ooooooh . . . you’re one of those.
🤣🤣🤣
Believes that the insurance/medical industrial complex wants a “healthier population”.
“Big government does nothing well or efficiently.”
This^^^^
Says the person who doesn’t notice the things the government does well or efficiently because government doesn’t have a PR department.
Example: National Nuclear Security Administration. They work to ensure large events are swept and safe from radiological attacks, as well as keeping nuclear material out of the hands of folks that might not have great intentions for it.
You are really fucking reaching bro.
Reduce Govt to the size of postage stamp. Limit it to the functions contained in the preamble. Nothing more.
The claim was that government does “nothing” well or efficiently. That claim was proven false by a single example. There are thousands more. Dept. of Commerce, for instance.
Thank you for your opinion.
But to your point. I usually refrain from speaking in absolutes.
Let me try again.
The government does VERY LITTLE well and very likely nothing, efficiently.
And to restate my point: The government does many things well and efficiently. You being unaware of them does not negate their existence.
Could they do more things well and more efficiently? Sure. So could the private sector. But often, what is sneeringly derided as “red tape” is actually governmental processes ensuring that the public is notified and has a chance to respond. Openness, Transparency, and Due diligence. They make the wheels of government turn slower, but with less chance of unintentionally crushing a segment of the population.
It’s so cute that you trust and defend the reputation of our government.
After their track record. GMAFB.
The treatment i receive from the VA is typically superior to the treatment provided through my private health insurance.
The tax burden will fall on people who do not have “jobs” (and neither did their daddy or their daddy). The people who will pay more taxes aren’t on this blog. Please.
I had an ob gyn ask me how many children I wanted to have and then she scheduled me for a c-section I didn’t want or need. New ob-gyn is pushing me to have a hysterectomy I neither want nor need. I can’t get other care that I really need because it’s not as lucrative for the doctors. How is this system a good one?
You are a lawyer? You charge a fee for your services?
Look to yourself for the answer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/health/cesarean-sections-black-women.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KU4.zrL5.SwFAmYVTqFY5&smid=url-share
You all may have good points. But here’s a question: based upon what the government’s own track record, what makes you think that higher taxes would pay for better schools, better healthcare, or better social services? They would just find more countries to bomb and invade. Let’s be honest 🤷🏿♂️
Last night, I was watching television and I was struck by a Sam & Ash commercial whose gist is, “All of the other personal injury lawyers, they’re driven by GREED! Not us!” To be fair, there are multiple firms running some iteration of the same ad.
It is mind blowing how incredibly stupid this genre of PI ad is in the context of Uber trying to cap civil contingencies at 20%. I don’t do PI, but I occasionally take on a contingency case in my area of law. I will never be able to do contingency again if and when Uber is successful. My contingency clients just won’t get representation. My contingency clients were never a threat to Uber, but will be collateral damage in all of this.
So, kindly, Sam & Ash – and others – could you please shut the fuck up about being unlike all of the other greedly lawyers? Are you this fucking stupid, to go out and run ads based on the very theme that Uber is using to cap contingency fees? HELLO?!?!?!
Paul Powell does it “You get hurt and your lawyer gets rich. Not very fair.” Battle Born does it “All of the lawyers brag how rich they are or how big of a house and you get little.” It is the appeal to the little guy that all of the others suck but I really care. It is disparaging to the practice. But the question is whether it is true.
PI is like printing money as long as you have clients walking through the door.
Hardly.
lol you’re doing it wrong
As a 20+ year solo, I take between 10-20 PI cases a year. I do not in any fashion advertise for these cases and make $75k-200k annually on these cases. I rarely litigate, but probably 1-2 a year get filed.
These cases are my periodic bonuses. They do not drive my practice and are not needed to survive or cover overhead. Upon disbursement, I immediately take a vacation, buy a new vehicle or toy or a new bobble for the wife.
bauble
A fellow Highwayman, I see.
Touche
In what area of law do you generally practice?
I love that dabbling in PI yields $75K to $200K for vacations and new cars and people will argue that there is not excess in PI fees. Lawyers have no idea how tone def this is to the public, who are going to pass the uber bill by an overwhelming margin. The gravy train is making its last run. Y’all better start banking cash the next few years and lay off the private jet trips and cars with the doors that open up instead of out. Additionally, PI bros, you should start trying to lock up a life partner soon. My guess is a lot fewer people are into you for you looks and personality than you thought.
Bitter, much?
Keep that same energy when people can’t find a lawyer in town to handle their PI case. You reap what you sow.
I have my doubts that the Uber bill gets passed or stays in place for long (Constitutional angles – right to contract and all that).
But the PI bar better step up in its efforts to shut down Uber.
Honestly, I would still do most of my cases for 20%, just no litigation.
I hope defense counsel aren’t cheering on the Uber decision. Whatever one may think about the supply of PI attorneys in Vegas, their link in the professional ecosystem is pretty clear: without plaintiffs and their attorneys, defense counsel who litigate against them are out of a job, too.
Even if individual litigation is replaced by more bet-the-company litigation in the form of class or mass actions (20 percent of a multimillion-dollar settlement is good enough for most attorneys), that defense work will surely go in no small part to large out-of-state firms. Of course, plaintiffs themselves often recover less in class actions than they would in individual action, but the choice between something and nothing is not a hard one to make.
I’m not sure companies should be cheering the Uber initiative, either. As cases become more complex and more involved, early settlements that preserve corporate secrets from exposure in discovery will dry up. The scope of proportional discovery will be expanded. That means more discovery, more public disclosure, and in turn, more corporate exposure for new and unexpected liability on a systemic level.
So, who really wins if the Uber initiative passes? Corporate bankruptcy attorneys; certain well-provisioned plaintiffs’ firms with the resources to bring class actions; and large out-of-state defense firms. Businesses, defense attorneys, and smaller plaintiffs’ PI shops, and last but not least the plaintiffs themselves, look like the big losers to me.
Are businesses really worried about class actions or mass actions, or even court actions in general?
I’m thinking of all of the arbitration agreements, class action, mass action, collective action, and jury trial waivers, and requirements to arbitrate single claims without groupings of plaintiffs or multiple claims. More and more companies are putting arbitration agreements in terms of service, and the federal courts (and Nevada Supreme Court) are very aggressive in enforcing them under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Our neighbor to the west tries to play whackamole with legislation trying to chip away at arbitration agreements, under procedural and substantive unconscionability theories, but they eventually and generally don’t hold up in courts.
What happens to the insurance industry when companies no longer need to pay huge premiums to protect from day to day litigation?
Literally. If you can’t see that it’s obnoxious and tacky to make clients walk past your luxury vehicles to get to the front door of your firm… yikes
I am not that small. I park and enter in the back of the building. Clients park out front.
With the valet.
🖕
Not really. The ID firms do good work. But the PI advertising culture does result in more claims and higher auto insurance rates in NV than many other states.
The advertising the OP complains about is a legit concern, but one SBN and OBC needs to address. OBC is wary/scared/unwilling (take your pick) to take on the first amendment issue.
Even a 2-3 year PI attorney can easily make over $300K per year.
SBN and OBC need to address it by getting the hell out of the advertising regulation business.
Hooge reminds me of one of those hooded guys in the Spanish Inquisition who sings prayers while torturing people.
Repent my child. Repent.
Reference:
Mel Brooks’ History of the World Part 1
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Maybe rates would be lower if insurers would promptly pay legitimate claims instead of waiting to get hit with $100 million in punitives on a case that should have immediately resolved in the low six-figures (or whatever the limits were in that recent case against Progressive).
It is like printing money that you spend on those billboards and TV (which during election season is a pretty penny) and UNLV donations and public relations. I think the average lawyer has no clue how much Naqvi and Lerner spend in an average year.
PAC 12 – UNLV was apparently not among those invited.
…Probably because UNLV cannot play competitively.
Theoretically, UNLV would be attractive because, relative to places like Fort Collins and Boise, it is a larger media market. However, UNLV Athletics has very little local market penetration compared to most FBS college towns. There is still some lingering goodwill from the Tarkanian years, but those people are now very old. And most people that live here, perhaps as much as 90%, moved here after Tarkanian. Las Vegas is further unattractive because the attention of locals is so diluted. We are the entertainment capital of the world AND we have the NFL, NHL and will soon have MLB and the NBA.
With the Holly Driggs and Lews Roca news is there any gossip with other firm combinations or shutdowns?
I heard Holley Driggs was merging? with a bigger firm but haven’t heard any Lewis Roca rumors – please let us know.
Look at yesterday’s comments. It is in there.
I had a phone call today with an opposing counsel I have not encountered previously. OC was a complete psycho and made every legal argument *very* personal. I just don’t litigate like that and I don’t take legal arguments personally. I don’t often run into OC that act this way. It caught me a little flat footed. Maybe OC was having a bad day or something. That’s a hard, inefficient, unproductive way to litigate.
Sounds like you were talking to Pengilly. Just never go alone to a depo with him.
I think I know the little fella you’re talking about.
Yes, an OC yelled at me yesterday because his office had not put his name on the service list and when I suggested that his paralegal do so, he screamed, “That’s my problem! I don’t have a paralegal!!!!!” Like that is my fault? Some attorneys need to simply grow up.
Awesome. How did you handle it?
i came here for backstreet boys references and jokes, and sadly to say it aint nothin but a heartbreak
Is that in reference to the Nickolas Carter lawsuits
Aint nothing but a mistake
You can here for BB references? Tell me why.