So the revisions to the NRCP were only half-baked? Shocking.
Guest
Anonymous
January 29, 2019 6:23 pm
The problem I have with the waiver is that, although it reduces the whole ~$50-$100 it takes to serve a party, it extends the time they have to file an answer to 60 days from the date the waiver was requested. That just makes things take longer. If I know where someone lives, I'd rather get them served and get things moving than to do the waiver.
None that I'm aware of. There's a listing of administrative orders at https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Administrative_Orders/ but that list tends to only list "final" orders, like orders amending rules, appointing individuals, orders rejecting petitions, and notice of the filing of petitions.
Guest
Anonymous
January 29, 2019 7:44 pm
I'm so pumped for Xtina's show on the Strip.
Guest
Anonymous
January 29, 2019 9:33 pm
Whoever wrote the nrcp 4 notice letter has never dealt with a pro se litigant. It is too long and complicated!
Guest
Anonymous
January 29, 2019 10:03 pm
Change of topic. Would anybody who has appeared in front of Judge Holthus on a civil matter share their comments or opinions. I just got her on a deficiency action, any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
Her reputation (that I've heard of) precedes her so I'm hopeful that things will even out eventually. But for now… deer in the headlights is what I got, along with a gut-level ruling that actually went against both parties' positions (which were in agreement!). PSA to judges: if both parties (who are present) agree, there's only 1 right answer 99.9% of the time! My advice to you: explain your position the same way you would to a jury–you know what I mean. No disrespect to the judge, since I can only imagine there's a steep learning curve initially on learning how to rock the black robe.
Guest
Anonymous
January 30, 2019 1:41 am
I first got licensed in the late 80's, and for many years incumbents were safe unless there were real negative issues against them and the opponent was far better funded than the incumbent(which did not happen too often).
But things have changed. Bailus was a new judge, had a solid reputation before taking the bench, and that reputation appeared to carry over to his very brief tenure on the bench.
I heard very few serious complaints about his judicial performance, yet he gets knocked off by a seriously underfunded candidate.
So, I guess incumbency is no longer a huge advantage for a sitting judge.
Bailus' only failing is that he is an old white male. He was utterly qualified and should have retained the position but for that fact. old white males were not in fashion this election cycle. Or, increasingly, the last few.
He wasn't great the few times I appeared in front of him on civil stuff. Like, not understanding that an individual could represent themselves pro se and questioning a motion to withdraw on that ground. I really don't think he did himself any favors during his time on the bench.
I like Mark and practiced with him for years. He was a disaster on the Bench. Confused. Mailed it in repeatedly to the point that in one hearing I finally broke down and told him that he needed to actually read the pleadings that were filed before making a ruling and to just let counsel come back the next week once he had. He believed (as so many predecessors) that a judicial position was paid retirement (Hey it works for Doug Smith). He was wrong.
Furthermore when you say "Incumbent", in my mind that presumes that the candidate ran for and was elected to the position. Mark never had run for the position; he was an appointee to whom the electorate felt no loyalty.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2019 4:57 pm
True that he was not an "incumbent" in the purest sense in that he was a recent appointee, but had never been elected or re-elected by the voters.
But 5:41 is correct that sitting judges, even if it were their first time on the ballot, used to be relatively safe unless their performance was viewed as unacceptable by the majority of attorneys, and there was a real well-funded opponent put up against them.
However, as much as I hate to agree with you as to your point about his performance and attitude once he ascended to the bench(and I hate to agree with you because I always really liked him),the hard truth is that you are 110% correct, and I frankly don't believe the point would even be open to debate–at least not by those who had multiple appearances before him.
So, when I think about him and his career legacy, I prefer to think of him as someone with a really distinguished, honorable, highly successful, and lengthy career as a practitioner. That is how I will define him, and I urge others to consider doing the same. Let's please not define him by a few undistinguished(or, as 3:23 puts it, even "disastrous" months on the bench.
I'd like to think that as he grew into the job, he would have conditioned himself to read everything, to learn civil law better, etc. I like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now we will never know for certain which direction his judicial trajectory would have taken him.
The electorate knows NOTHING about our judges except who is the incumbent and which ones are women. Its time for gubernatorial appointments only.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2019 4:59 pm
Some really good attorneys simply don't have it in their DNA to be good judges. The skill set is quite different. We tend to assume that really good attorneys will make really good judges. But it is surprising how often that is wrong.
Likewise some people who were not all that great as attorneys, eventually make fine judges.
Looks like the Supreme Court reversed its decision not to include penalties in the new NRCP version of Rule 4.1 for waiver of service. That didn't take long. . . .http://nevadalaw.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Rule-4.1.pdf
So the revisions to the NRCP were only half-baked? Shocking.
The problem I have with the waiver is that, although it reduces the whole ~$50-$100 it takes to serve a party, it extends the time they have to file an answer to 60 days from the date the waiver was requested. That just makes things take longer. If I know where someone lives, I'd rather get them served and get things moving than to do the waiver.
They also have 30 days to decide whether they want to waive service or not.
You can still serve if you want conventionally, I think.
Of course you can.
Is there any way to get automatic electronic notices of when the court issues an order in an administrative docket?
None that I'm aware of. There's a listing of administrative orders at https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Administrative_Orders/ but that list tends to only list "final" orders, like orders amending rules, appointing individuals, orders rejecting petitions, and notice of the filing of petitions.
I'm so pumped for Xtina's show on the Strip.
Whoever wrote the nrcp 4 notice letter has never dealt with a pro se litigant. It is too long and complicated!
Change of topic. Would anybody who has appeared in front of Judge Holthus on a civil matter share their comments or opinions. I just got her on a deficiency action, any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
She hasn't taken the bench yet. Her courtroom is still being handled by a rotation of judges (typically Barker and Thompson)
Interesting. Thanks!
Her reputation (that I've heard of) precedes her so I'm hopeful that things will even out eventually. But for now… deer in the headlights is what I got, along with a gut-level ruling that actually went against both parties' positions (which were in agreement!). PSA to judges: if both parties (who are present) agree, there's only 1 right answer 99.9% of the time! My advice to you: explain your position the same way you would to a jury–you know what I mean. No disrespect to the judge, since I can only imagine there's a steep learning curve initially on learning how to rock the black robe.
I first got licensed in the late 80's, and for many years incumbents were safe unless there were real negative issues against them and the opponent was far better funded than the incumbent(which did not happen too often).
But things have changed. Bailus was a new judge, had a solid reputation before taking the bench, and that reputation appeared to carry over to his very brief tenure on the bench.
I heard very few serious complaints about his judicial performance, yet he gets knocked off by a seriously underfunded candidate.
So, I guess incumbency is no longer a huge advantage for a sitting judge.
Bailus' only failing is that he is an old white male. He was utterly qualified and should have retained the position but for that fact. old white males were not in fashion this election cycle. Or, increasingly, the last few.
He wasn't great the few times I appeared in front of him on civil stuff. Like, not understanding that an individual could represent themselves pro se and questioning a motion to withdraw on that ground. I really don't think he did himself any favors during his time on the bench.
I like Mark and practiced with him for years. He was a disaster on the Bench. Confused. Mailed it in repeatedly to the point that in one hearing I finally broke down and told him that he needed to actually read the pleadings that were filed before making a ruling and to just let counsel come back the next week once he had. He believed (as so many predecessors) that a judicial position was paid retirement (Hey it works for Doug Smith). He was wrong.
Furthermore when you say "Incumbent", in my mind that presumes that the candidate ran for and was elected to the position. Mark never had run for the position; he was an appointee to whom the electorate felt no loyalty.
True that he was not an "incumbent" in the purest sense in that he was a recent appointee, but had never been elected or re-elected by the voters.
But 5:41 is correct that sitting judges, even if it were their first time on the ballot, used to be relatively safe unless their performance was viewed as unacceptable by the majority of attorneys, and there was a real well-funded opponent put up against them.
However, as much as I hate to agree with you as to your point about his performance and attitude once he ascended to the bench(and I hate to agree with you because I always really liked him),the hard truth is that you are 110% correct, and I frankly don't believe the point would even be open to debate–at least not by those who had multiple appearances before him.
So, when I think about him and his career legacy, I prefer to think of him as someone with a really distinguished, honorable, highly successful, and lengthy career as a practitioner. That is how I will define him, and I urge others to consider doing the same. Let's please not define him by a few undistinguished(or, as 3:23 puts it, even "disastrous" months on the bench.
I'd like to think that as he grew into the job, he would have conditioned himself to read everything, to learn civil law better, etc. I like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now we will never know for certain which direction his judicial trajectory would have taken him.
The electorate knows NOTHING about our judges except who is the incumbent and which ones are women. Its time for gubernatorial appointments only.
Some really good attorneys simply don't have it in their DNA to be good judges. The skill set is quite different. We tend to assume that really good attorneys will make really good judges. But it is surprising how often that is wrong.
Likewise some people who were not all that great as attorneys, eventually make fine judges.
It is all so hard to predict.