“Super-sealing” in federal court is now called “special processing,” but otherwise has not changed. [RJ]
The Nevada Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on December 4 to discuss the rule that will decide what cases are automatically pushed down to the new Court of Appeals. [RJ]
The Uber battle is back in court this morning. [RGJ]
The Court of Appeals application packages are up and ready for your prying eyes. Let us know if you find anything interesting.
Mr. Sanson received a letter from the Nevada Republican Men's Club stating he was banned from attending future RMC events after he got into an argument with guest speaker LVRJ reporter Glenn Cook at their November luncheon at Cili's. Mr. Cook had written an editorial about Mr. Sanson's political endorsement group, and attorney Jason Stoffel had previously demanded the RJ retract the comments Sanson didn't like. It was alleged that Sanson physically contacted the guest speaker which RMC objected to.
Bully. Also Incident at the Hilton was scary w while packing two guns and very drunk. Also no stranger to being served with TPO's from women not his wife that he continually bothers.
What is his expertise in politics again? Running losing campaigns for offices he's unqualified for. Don't forget about the alternate yellow pages company and all the collection lawsuits he filed.
Guest
Anonymous
November 17, 2014 3:50 pm
What cases will automatically be crammed down, oh, so sorry, pushed down? Think all Family, all DMV, all prisoner to start. Since it's a given that all Family will be crammed down, perhaps someone with a tinny bitty bit of Family Law experience should sit in the court of appeals. Since that won't happen, I'm going to work where reality exists.
Totally meaning to disparage family law, but seriously, how much experience do you need to interpret the family law statutes and case law? I think there are like four cases that control it, and none of the family court judges interpret it uniformly. It's a fact driven area of law, so most of the factual findings should be rubber stamped unless it was clearly an abuse of discretion. As for the evidentiary/question of law issues, I'm more confident that a non-family law attorney will be able to handle those better than those tainted by family law experience.
I once heard a district court judge say the rules of discovery and evidence may not apply in family law court but apply to the district court (addressed to Stoffel and Kazel both family law attorneys) so what does that tell you even the district court is aware of the family law circus that bozo the clown and the pit bull with lipstick practices in, oh I forgot nobody cares so it must just be a personal vendetta
@ 6:53 AM – It's become clear that you have some deep-rooted personal issues with both Stoffel and Kazel. I hope one day soon you can either resolve those issues, or simply move on with your life and forget them. In the meantime, however, I think it's time you give these comments a rest.
Dear law. Dawg do you not think everyone should be aware of some of the unethical clowns that drive clients fees up and waste everyone's time needlessly because they want to churn their limited client base, a smart attorney avoids court at all costs you never know the results. A skilled attorney is a skilled negoiater not a reckless litigator
Guest
Anonymous
November 17, 2014 7:33 pm
AG's office is trying to withdraw preliminary injunction motion and forum shop so they don't have to have Herndon rule.
Guest
Anonymous
November 17, 2014 7:43 pm
If I were on the selection committee, I would automatically reject anyone who handwrote their application. Would that be unfair?
Off topic, has anyone seen the latest Frank Sorrentino commercials? It appears he has had some work done and may have a new rug. I'm trying to find a before and after shot.
He has so much dye in his hair and moustache and make up that he looks like a doll. The stuff on his cheeks is more than any woman would wear. I am embarassed for him.
Alan Lefebvre for Question 47: "Detail any further information relative to your judicial candidacy that you desire to call to the attention of the members of the Commission on Judicial Selection." Answer: "Optics are significant to the judiciary; if selected, I would endeavor to achieve a normal weight."
Is it just me, or is that just a really odd thing to include in a judicial application, regardless of his weight?
I don't even know where to start with that response when trying to break it down. It seem so far out of left field. My only interpretation of it is that he believes judges shouldn't be fat because of public perception? So if he's selected, he'll try to lose some weight. But if not selected, forget about it. Back to the twinkies.
Makes me feel bad for the guy. Until I read that, I never even thought of him as being overweight–I never even thought about it. Clearly it's a thing that he thinks about often enough to think the judicial selection commission cares about his waist size.
Hey…if you don't watch your figure no one else will — Emily Post.
Guest
Anonymous
November 18, 2014 1:51 am
I am far less concerned about his weight than about those bizarre columns he wrote in NV Lawyer. And I don't think "optics" is the correct word. A very puzzling response.
If you're saying he had freedom of speech in his columns, you're even more delusional. His personal opinion on certain areas of law was wildly inappropriate as he was writing as State Bar President. And after that recent debacle he thinks it is a good idea for him to get an appointment? Was he dropped as a child?
You know, there used to be a time where the offering of differing opinions was encouraged . . . where words spoken in dissent were valued. Now, it’s become acceptable to attack the person offering those words just because you don’t share the same opinion.
I don’t agree with our former State Bar President’s opinions (set forth in the Nevada Lawyer), but I’m sure as hell not going to attack him personally for having those opinions or for writing about those opinions (regardless of the forum). A number of commentators responded in the following month’s Nevada Lawyer and they did an excellent job of laying out the case for legalizing same-sex marriage and defending the decision by the State Attorney General in the handling of the Ninth Circuit Appeal regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.
Alan Lefebvre wasn’t dropped as a child – he just has a different opinion than you (based on the polling, a different that most of us). And that’s okay – the world would be a boring place if we always agreed on everything.
2:38 pm, thanks for your post. I also disagreed with Alan's opinion, but I was much more repulsed by everyone rushing to kick Alan when he was down. Alan has always been a gentleman around me, which is more than I can say for several people that publicly jumped on the bandwagon against him.
Guest
Anonymous
November 19, 2014 5:21 am
MWIT. My take on the finalists for each seat(not necessarily who should be the finalists, but who are likely to be the finalists) is as follows(and I listed them in the order of projected finish):
Seat #1: (1) Chief District Judge Dave Hardy from Reno; (2)Judge Jerry Tao(a not so distant second); and (3) Mike Davidson(some degree of separation between him and the top two).
Seat #2: (1) Judge Mike Gibbons from Douglas County; (2) Judge Susan Johnson(following closely);
and(3) Tom Beatty(a distant third. It is very, very unfortunate but the Executive Branch seldom appoints people who have reached 70. They want to appoint people who can serve for a long time, and they don't want their appointments replaced by the next Governor, particularly when the successor Governor is of the opposing political party. That said, admittedly our Nevada Governors sometimes appoint a judge from the opposing political party–something recent U.S. Presidents seldom, if ever, do.).
Seat #3:(1) Judge Abbi Silver; (2) Judge Mike Montero(following fairly close, but still some degree of separation); (3) Judge Allan Earl(probably the most legally sound individual in any of the three departments. His sterling judicial career is rivaled only by his amazing career as a civil attorney prior to taking the Bench. But, tragically, it's rare that a Governor appoints someone as a judge who is past 70. Boy, I hope I'm dead wrong because Earl would be a great addition to the new court); (4) For this department I'll throw in a fourth, bonus one:Stan Hunterton. he has the reputation, profile, and connections, to pull it off. But, he too is approaching the age where an appointment can become difficult.
I have no problems with any of the 10 people I have mentioned. They all have unique strengths. Some do have more drawbacks than others, but none of them would be bad choices at all(including Johnson, and, yes, doubters, Abbi Silver would probably be fine as well
. But I am looking forward to the fun part. I am asking that others please weigh in and tell me how wrong I am. I relish a likely discussion, and I hope to learn from other people's postings. Thanks for reading.
So, 9:21, sounds like a pretty thorough and thoughtful analysis, but you are making no allowances for the completely unexpected, or for the downright bizarre. For example, perhaps the guy who hand wrote most of his application will succeed, through reverse psychology, in having his application examined much more closely than the others. Remember, when Gideon filed his Petition for Writ of Cert., with the U.S. Supremes, it was hand-written, and history was made. So, if this applicant who hand wrote his application is appointed, then during the next cycle some applicants will undoubtedly fill out their applications in crayon.
I agree with your analysis for the most part, but I don't think the post-70 issue is crucial because of the possibility of resignation/death & appointment by a new governor. With elections for the seats in only 2 years, resignation and death should not be a big factor. BUT I think that age may be a factor because these appointments will have a big leg up for Supreme Court positions as the sitting justices start to retire and the Governor may want to influence that process. I don't think it will be 3 district court judges, 3 men, or 3 from the south or 3 from the north. For Dept. 1, I predict David Hardy, Jerry Tao and Janet Chubb with Hardy getting the appointment (but Tao if Sandoval considers racial diversity). For Dept. 2, I predict Susan Johnson, Mike Gibbons, and Michelle Morgando, with Johnson getting the appointment. For Dept. 3, I predict Abbi Silver, Michael Montero and Joan Wright with Wright getting the appointment.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/110480855077/permalink/10154881832505078/
Steve Sanson beclowns himself again!
Good Lord, what an embarrassing exchange.
not on facebook what does it say?
Mr. Sanson received a letter from the Nevada Republican Men's Club stating he was banned from attending future RMC events after he got into an argument with guest speaker LVRJ reporter Glenn Cook at their November luncheon at Cili's. Mr. Cook had written an editorial about Mr. Sanson's political endorsement group, and attorney Jason Stoffel had previously demanded the RJ retract the comments Sanson didn't like. It was alleged that Sanson physically contacted the guest speaker which RMC objected to.
Bully. Also Incident at the Hilton was scary w while packing two guns and very drunk. Also no stranger to being served with TPO's from women not his wife that he continually bothers.
What is his expertise in politics again? Running losing campaigns for offices he's unqualified for. Don't forget about the alternate yellow pages company and all the collection lawsuits he filed.
What cases will automatically be crammed down, oh, so sorry, pushed down? Think all Family, all DMV, all prisoner to start. Since it's a given that all Family will be crammed down, perhaps someone with a tinny bitty bit of Family Law experience should sit in the court of appeals. Since that won't happen, I'm going to work where reality exists.
Oh Hai Bill Gonzalez.
Totally meaning to disparage family law, but seriously, how much experience do you need to interpret the family law statutes and case law? I think there are like four cases that control it, and none of the family court judges interpret it uniformly. It's a fact driven area of law, so most of the factual findings should be rubber stamped unless it was clearly an abuse of discretion. As for the evidentiary/question of law issues, I'm more confident that a non-family law attorney will be able to handle those better than those tainted by family law experience.
I once heard a district court judge say the rules of discovery and evidence may not apply in family law court but apply to the district court (addressed to Stoffel and Kazel both family law attorneys) so what does that tell you even the district court is aware of the family law circus that bozo the clown and the pit bull with lipstick practices in, oh I forgot nobody cares so it must just be a personal vendetta
@ 6:53 AM – It's become clear that you have some deep-rooted personal issues with both Stoffel and Kazel. I hope one day soon you can either resolve those issues, or simply move on with your life and forget them. In the meantime, however, I think it's time you give these comments a rest.
Dear law. Dawg do you not think everyone should be aware of some of the unethical clowns that drive clients fees up and waste everyone's time needlessly because they want to churn their limited client base, a smart attorney avoids court at all costs you never know the results. A skilled attorney is a skilled negoiater not a reckless litigator
AG's office is trying to withdraw preliminary injunction motion and forum shop so they don't have to have Herndon rule.
If I were on the selection committee, I would automatically reject anyone who handwrote their application. Would that be unfair?
This is the only correct answer.
Join.
I don't think that Justice Gibbons, as Chair of the Judicial Selection Commission, should be able to vote for his relative, who is a CoA candidate.
Gibbons recused himself
Off topic, has anyone seen the latest Frank Sorrentino commercials? It appears he has had some work done and may have a new rug. I'm trying to find a before and after shot.
He has so much dye in his hair and moustache and make up that he looks like a doll. The stuff on his cheeks is more than any woman would wear. I am embarassed for him.
Ed Bernstein should get a piece
I let out a gasp when I saw this (during the Maury Show… Don't judge me!)
http://i.imgur.com/39vTnrS.jpg
Yikes!
I remember when Ed had hair back in 1977
Alan Lefebvre for Question 47: "Detail any further information relative to your judicial candidacy that you desire to call to the attention of the members of the Commission on Judicial Selection." Answer: "Optics are significant to the judiciary; if selected, I would endeavor to achieve a normal weight."
Is it just me, or is that just a really odd thing to include in a judicial application, regardless of his weight?
I don't even know where to start with that response when trying to break it down. It seem so far out of left field. My only interpretation of it is that he believes judges shouldn't be fat because of public perception? So if he's selected, he'll try to lose some weight. But if not selected, forget about it. Back to the twinkies.
Makes me feel bad for the guy. Until I read that, I never even thought of him as being overweight–I never even thought about it. Clearly it's a thing that he thinks about often enough to think the judicial selection commission cares about his waist size.
Hey…if you don't watch your figure no one else will — Emily Post.
I am far less concerned about his weight than about those bizarre columns he wrote in NV Lawyer. And I don't think "optics" is the correct word. A very puzzling response.
Maybe he has an issue we don't know about. Perhaps his partners and family should take the oddity as a warning sign?
Yeah, so putting it all together…
Thin and homophobic? Perfectly fine. Civil rights, Shmivil rights.
Overweight and tolerant? Heavens to Betsy! Unbecoming of a "jurist"!
I always thought posting on a blog voicing ones opinion is called freedom of speech but then again who cares
I thought this was a blog with people who know the law. You have no freedom of speech on a private website…
If you're saying he had freedom of speech in his columns, you're even more delusional. His personal opinion on certain areas of law was wildly inappropriate as he was writing as State Bar President. And after that recent debacle he thinks it is a good idea for him to get an appointment? Was he dropped as a child?
You know, there used to be a time where the offering of differing opinions was encouraged . . . where words spoken in dissent were valued. Now, it’s become acceptable to attack the person offering those words just because you don’t share the same opinion.
I don’t agree with our former State Bar President’s opinions (set forth in the Nevada Lawyer), but I’m sure as hell not going to attack him personally for having those opinions or for writing about those opinions (regardless of the forum). A number of commentators responded in the following month’s Nevada Lawyer and they did an excellent job of laying out the case for legalizing same-sex marriage and defending the decision by the State Attorney General in the handling of the Ninth Circuit Appeal regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.
Alan Lefebvre wasn’t dropped as a child – he just has a different opinion than you (based on the polling, a different that most of us). And that’s okay – the world would be a boring place if we always agreed on everything.
2:38 pm, thanks for your post. I also disagreed with Alan's opinion, but I was much more repulsed by everyone rushing to kick Alan when he was down. Alan has always been a gentleman around me, which is more than I can say for several people that publicly jumped on the bandwagon against him.
MWIT. My take on the finalists for each seat(not necessarily who should be the finalists, but who are likely to be the finalists) is as follows(and I listed them in the order of projected finish):
Seat #1: (1) Chief District Judge Dave Hardy from Reno; (2)Judge Jerry Tao(a not so distant second); and (3) Mike Davidson(some degree of separation between him and the top two).
Seat #2: (1) Judge Mike Gibbons from Douglas County; (2) Judge Susan Johnson(following closely);
and(3) Tom Beatty(a distant third. It is very, very unfortunate but the Executive Branch seldom appoints people who have reached 70. They want to appoint people who can serve for a long time, and they don't want their appointments replaced by the next Governor, particularly when the successor Governor is of the opposing political party. That said, admittedly our Nevada Governors sometimes appoint a judge from the opposing political party–something recent U.S. Presidents seldom, if ever, do.).
Seat #3:(1) Judge Abbi Silver; (2) Judge Mike Montero(following fairly close, but still some degree of separation); (3) Judge Allan Earl(probably the most legally sound individual in any of the three departments. His sterling judicial career is rivaled only by his amazing career as a civil attorney prior to taking the Bench. But, tragically, it's rare that a Governor appoints someone as a judge who is past 70. Boy, I hope I'm dead wrong because Earl would be a great addition to the new court); (4) For this department I'll throw in a fourth, bonus one:Stan Hunterton. he has the reputation, profile, and connections, to pull it off. But, he too is approaching the age where an appointment can become difficult.
I have no problems with any of the 10 people I have mentioned. They all have unique strengths. Some do have more drawbacks than others, but none of them would be bad choices at all(including Johnson, and, yes, doubters, Abbi Silver would probably be fine as well
. But I am looking forward to the fun part. I am asking that others please weigh in and tell me how wrong I am. I relish a likely discussion, and I hope to learn from other people's postings. Thanks for reading.
So, 9:21, sounds like a pretty thorough and thoughtful analysis, but you are making no allowances for the completely unexpected, or for the downright bizarre. For example, perhaps the guy who hand wrote most of his application will succeed, through reverse psychology, in having his application examined much more closely than the others. Remember, when Gideon filed his Petition for Writ of Cert., with the U.S. Supremes, it was hand-written, and history was made. So, if this applicant who hand wrote his application is appointed, then during the next cycle some applicants will undoubtedly fill out their applications in crayon.
I agree with your analysis for the most part, but I don't think the post-70 issue is crucial because of the possibility of resignation/death & appointment by a new governor. With elections for the seats in only 2 years, resignation and death should not be a big factor. BUT I think that age may be a factor because these appointments will have a big leg up for Supreme Court positions as the sitting justices start to retire and the Governor may want to influence that process. I don't think it will be 3 district court judges, 3 men, or 3 from the south or 3 from the north. For Dept. 1, I predict David Hardy, Jerry Tao and Janet Chubb with Hardy getting the appointment (but Tao if Sandoval considers racial diversity). For Dept. 2, I predict Susan Johnson, Mike Gibbons, and Michelle Morgando, with Johnson getting the appointment. For Dept. 3, I predict Abbi Silver, Michael Montero and Joan Wright with Wright getting the appointment.