Legalizing sports betting across the country was a huge mistake that, unfortunately, cannot be undone. We are going to see scandal after scandal that compromises the integrity of professional leagues. I find no assurance in the software that is designed to identify irregularities in betting patterns and moving lines.
No politician will ever do that, unfortunately. “Sorry Mom, the mob has spoken!” There’s too much money being made now to stop it. I place one or two small bets a year, in person. What I hate about this is the way that degenerate gamblers are now out in the open, bitching about the outcome of games, getting pissed off at players, coaches and refs. Sports fandom is a fun escape and these bums are ruining the vibe by making everything so personal, and so serious and so money oriented.
I actually like a lot of the off-strip gaming here. Everything from video poker at the local dive to casinos like Red Rock and Suncoast (which I don’t gamble at but which offer a lot of other amenities that I enjoy). But I think it would be a shame if anywhere else looked like Vegas.
Gambling related scandals have existed long before nationwide legalized gambling. Ever heard of the 1919 White Sox? University of Kentucky point shaving in the 40s and 50s? Pete Rose? Tim Donaghy?
Legalized gambling puts the books and the leagues on the same side. The amount of gambling-related cheating hasn’t gone up, the amount of people getting caught has gone up.
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2025 10:33 am
To everyone in Department 4 this morning…… We just got a message that the Court does not have a judge and is unable to proceed with calendar this morning. Anyone know what is going on?
Sull is the dumbest opinion ever. So I disagree. The entire bar should just ignore it (which anecdotally I perceive it is). Completely out of touch with reality. The fact that Hooge is proud of it and giving CLEs is (or should be) telling. Hooge should be focused on complying with the rules that he claims he’s enforcing.
Sure, it’s a dumb opinion. But ignoring it is stupid. Just don’t do flat fees. Easy peasy.
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2025 12:42 pm
Are all the entitled middle aged and elderly men done whining about how many women judges we have, or are we going to have to read more of their drivel? What’s astonishing to me is that they genuinely believe that they are more qualified or smarter than the women in the bench. They aren’t.
I personally dont care who is on the bench as long as they apply the law as it is written. I understand there is argument about nuances and/or facts that can affect how the law may be applied, but some judges just get it wrong. gender has no play in that
and then there’s that one judge who will light you up for not dotting your i’s or crossing your t’s, (ie, filing ATEAR day before)
I’ve seen her spend 45 minutes of a 1-hour hearing lecturing the lawyers on remote appearance etiquette. I’m a compulsive rule follower but even I recognize that is an enormous waste of judicial and client resources. She is just incapable of prioritizing the things that actually matter.
These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
No one is saying men are smarter than women categorically. However you cannot sit there with a straight face and state that all of the women applicants/candidates were the most qualified for their positions or are the smartest/most well qualified for their positions today. There are incompetent male judges on the bench currently also; however there are less. I am not pushing for more men; I am pushing for better judges.
I don’t really care what the gender make up is. This debate is interesting, however, because for a long time I thought feminism was about achieving gender equality. Some of these comments are as hostile in favor of a judicial matriarchy as they were in taking down the patriarchy. If we end up with a judicial matriarchy, I don’t care. Good lawyers adapt to their environment instead of complaining about it.
I think we can all agree that, male or female, the average judge sitting on the bench today is noticeably less competent than they were a decade ago. That lack of competence is costing us time, money, and adding to our collective frustration with the profession.
Pay is a big reason why. I don’t consider myself to be Learned Hand, but I make almost $100k more than a judge does. I don’t think I would be a great judge, but if I did, I wouldn’t be willing to take that kind of pay cut.
Bingo. If you’ve been practicing 10 years (minimum req to run for district court), and you’re not making at least 250 —- at least —- that says a lot about you. and I beg you not to run for judge.
Any chance that the new judges are making you do the actual work of representation? Any chance they are not confusing your confidence with competence? Making you prove your assertions? Not tolerating your blustering? Judges are not less competent now. They’re just less male.
sigh… this comment is off for a number of reasons, principally, I believe we were still majority female ten years ago. Its not that having more females is making the bench worse, its the females we have on the bench.
2004 (21 departments) 11 men, 10 women
2015 (32 departments) 15 men, 17 women
2025 (32 departments) 7 men, 25 women
In those 10 years, (for departments where the gender switched), we traded
-Cory for Yeager in 1
– Scotti for Kierney in 2
-Herndon for Trujillo in 3
-Smith for Peterson in 8
-Villani for Schwartz in 17
-Barker/Bailus for Holthus in 18
-Kephart for Eller in 19
-Crockett for Ballou in 24
-Scann for Reynolds in 29 (switch F to M)
-Bare for Craig in 32
As remarkable as the gender switch has been is how profound the switch from any civil competency has been.
Eller was the unintended beneficiary of Pro Publica’s work on the Fred Steese matter. That’s not a criticism of Eller, we should all be glad that Kephart is gone.
looking at this list makes realize how we definitely lost some good judges and replaced them with ones maybe not so experienced…although i would say kephart for eller is pretty even.
I dont miss crocketts 5 hour court hearings, although ballou has her own issues. and smith for peterson is almost the same too, as they are both known for their personalities more than their rulings.
While Ballou’s personality is…infamous, at least in my experience, her rulings tend to follow the law and her discretionary calls are fair. Peterson on the other hand has few if any redeeming qualities.
Trevor Atkin was not on the bench 10 years ago. So the poster asked about a comparison of 10 years ago (much like Bailus in for Barker replaced by Holthus).
The following should no doubt have opponents next year: Albertson, Holthus, Pieper, Spells, Mendoza. Maybe they can run against once they learn the NRCP and become less afraid to make decisions. I can’t even put Ballou on here even though she has done some things that make her look bad because she has made hard decisions based on the law (in civil) and does so in minute orders which is convenient. *Sigh*. Unfortunately, at best these incumbents will have opponents who are… drum roll… also looking to retire from the DAs/PDs office. Wish we had more civil people interested in office.
I have had extremely good experiences with Mendoza. She is not at all afraid to make a SJ ruling. Albertson and Spells are also good, albeit I did not have an SJ experience with them.
Mendoza is very definitive. The problem lies in that she is definitively wrong about 80% of the time, including making findings and asserting arguments that no one has made because they do not exist in the case.
Gates was an abomination. Miley always treated me fairly, but had no business being on the bench. Our firm frequently sent LDS attorneys to any contested appearances in front of Huffaker. At least we don’t have any dementia patients on the bench these days.
Israel once had me, and about 12 other attorneys with various matters before show up in person at a mandatory status check at 3 oclock on a random tuesday afternoon. Nobody knew why we were there. He comes out and says that we were all there because the Court was changing up his docket and so the deadlines in our cases might have to be changed. Not even that they were changed or that we had to change them then, that they may be altered in the future. That was literally it. I had never seen such a pointless waste of resources. Could have just sent out an updated scheduling order if and when changes happened. Which they never did.
Avoiding Ganz would be a mistake, especially given the alternatives you could end up with. I find him to be prepared and decisive in making his rulings, and doesn’t waste time. Plus he understands civil law which is seriously lacking on our current bench!
Legalizing sports betting across the country was a huge mistake that, unfortunately, cannot be undone. We are going to see scandal after scandal that compromises the integrity of professional leagues. I find no assurance in the software that is designed to identify irregularities in betting patterns and moving lines.
I will literally become a one issue voter if a politician ran on illegalizing gambling anywhere other than the Strip, Atlantic City, and reservations.
No politician will ever do that, unfortunately. “Sorry Mom, the mob has spoken!” There’s too much money being made now to stop it. I place one or two small bets a year, in person. What I hate about this is the way that degenerate gamblers are now out in the open, bitching about the outcome of games, getting pissed off at players, coaches and refs. Sports fandom is a fun escape and these bums are ruining the vibe by making everything so personal, and so serious and so money oriented.
I actually like a lot of the off-strip gaming here. Everything from video poker at the local dive to casinos like Red Rock and Suncoast (which I don’t gamble at but which offer a lot of other amenities that I enjoy). But I think it would be a shame if anywhere else looked like Vegas.
Gambling related scandals have existed long before nationwide legalized gambling. Ever heard of the 1919 White Sox? University of Kentucky point shaving in the 40s and 50s? Pete Rose? Tim Donaghy?
Legalized gambling puts the books and the leagues on the same side. The amount of gambling-related cheating hasn’t gone up, the amount of people getting caught has gone up.
To everyone in Department 4 this morning…… We just got a message that the Court does not have a judge and is unable to proceed with calendar this morning. Anyone know what is going on?
Is that Nadia Krall? Any word. No idea.
Hopefully she’s decided to retire and leave the judging to others.
Justice Cherry was supposed to sit but ended up not being able to for some reason and they couldn’t find other coverage.
Krall is gone for three weeks.
She holds two calendar days a week and takes more time off than most. I just don’t get it man.
Spoken like the campaign manager of someone who wants to challenge her.
Is Bill Maupin doing any Senior Judge stuff?
Bar Counsel Dan Hooge is presenting a CLE webinar tomorrow on flat fee fundamentals in light of Sull. https://members.nvbar.org/cvweb/cgi-bin/eventsdll.dll/EventInfo?SESSIONALTCD=CLE-4420-2501
The best way to mitigate the risk of discipline problems with flat fees it to just not offer them.
Sull is the dumbest opinion ever. So I disagree. The entire bar should just ignore it (which anecdotally I perceive it is). Completely out of touch with reality. The fact that Hooge is proud of it and giving CLEs is (or should be) telling. Hooge should be focused on complying with the rules that he claims he’s enforcing.
Sure, it’s a dumb opinion. But ignoring it is stupid. Just don’t do flat fees. Easy peasy.
Are all the entitled middle aged and elderly men done whining about how many women judges we have, or are we going to have to read more of their drivel? What’s astonishing to me is that they genuinely believe that they are more qualified or smarter than the women in the bench. They aren’t.
“They” is doing *a lot* of work.
I personally dont care who is on the bench as long as they apply the law as it is written. I understand there is argument about nuances and/or facts that can affect how the law may be applied, but some judges just get it wrong. gender has no play in that
and then there’s that one judge who will light you up for not dotting your i’s or crossing your t’s, (ie, filing ATEAR day before)
Who?
Rhymes with Fishfur
@2:26 if you have to ask, you ain’t in court enough homie.
Someone is having a mantrum because a judge is making him know and follow the rules.
I’ve seen her spend 45 minutes of a 1-hour hearing lecturing the lawyers on remote appearance etiquette. I’m a compulsive rule follower but even I recognize that is an enormous waste of judicial and client resources. She is just incapable of prioritizing the things that actually matter.
A judge should not prioritize blind procedural rule-following over common sense.
NRCP 1: Scope and Purpose
These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Yeah, they are.
Obviously, they are not done.
No one is saying men are smarter than women categorically. However you cannot sit there with a straight face and state that all of the women applicants/candidates were the most qualified for their positions or are the smartest/most well qualified for their positions today. There are incompetent male judges on the bench currently also; however there are less. I am not pushing for more men; I am pushing for better judges.
I don’t really care what the gender make up is. This debate is interesting, however, because for a long time I thought feminism was about achieving gender equality. Some of these comments are as hostile in favor of a judicial matriarchy as they were in taking down the patriarchy. If we end up with a judicial matriarchy, I don’t care. Good lawyers adapt to their environment instead of complaining about it.
I think we can all agree that, male or female, the average judge sitting on the bench today is noticeably less competent than they were a decade ago. That lack of competence is costing us time, money, and adding to our collective frustration with the profession.
Pay is a big reason why. I don’t consider myself to be Learned Hand, but I make almost $100k more than a judge does. I don’t think I would be a great judge, but if I did, I wouldn’t be willing to take that kind of pay cut.
Bingo. If you’ve been practicing 10 years (minimum req to run for district court), and you’re not making at least 250 —- at least —- that says a lot about you. and I beg you not to run for judge.
I think it largely depends on the area of law. What areas pay $250k+ after 10 years?
There are some fifth/sixth years at “big law” firms making this already.
With bonuses you make that as a first year in biglaw.
Not in the Vegas market…
Any chance that the new judges are making you do the actual work of representation? Any chance they are not confusing your confidence with competence? Making you prove your assertions? Not tolerating your blustering? Judges are not less competent now. They’re just less male.
As a female attorney, no, they’re definitely just less competent.
Prove your point with evidence.
sigh… this comment is off for a number of reasons, principally, I believe we were still majority female ten years ago. Its not that having more females is making the bench worse, its the females we have on the bench.
What was the composition of the bench 10 years ago? Do you actually know or are you spitballing?
2004 (21 departments) 11 men, 10 women
2015 (32 departments) 15 men, 17 women
2025 (32 departments) 7 men, 25 women
In those 10 years, (for departments where the gender switched), we traded
-Cory for Yeager in 1
– Scotti for Kierney in 2
-Herndon for Trujillo in 3
-Smith for Peterson in 8
-Villani for Schwartz in 17
-Barker/Bailus for Holthus in 18
-Kephart for Eller in 19
-Crockett for Ballou in 24
-Scann for Reynolds in 29 (switch F to M)
-Bare for Craig in 32
As remarkable as the gender switch has been is how profound the switch from any civil competency has been.
“Kephart for Eller”
Eller was the unintended beneficiary of Pro Publica’s work on the Fred Steese matter. That’s not a criticism of Eller, we should all be glad that Kephart is gone.
https://www.propublica.org/article/alford-pleas-fred-steese-conviction-without-admitting-guilt
He was terrible. As was Doug Smith.
I never understood why Smith was so angry all the time. It was very strange.
he was angry the Supremes didnt let him get his retirement loophole
looking at this list makes realize how we definitely lost some good judges and replaced them with ones maybe not so experienced…although i would say kephart for eller is pretty even.
I dont miss crocketts 5 hour court hearings, although ballou has her own issues. and smith for peterson is almost the same too, as they are both known for their personalities more than their rulings.
While Ballou’s personality is…infamous, at least in my experience, her rulings tend to follow the law and her discretionary calls are fair. Peterson on the other hand has few if any redeeming qualities.
Are we leaving out Trevor Atkin? I thought he was a tremendous judge.
Trevor Atkin was not on the bench 10 years ago. So the poster asked about a comparison of 10 years ago (much like Bailus in for Barker replaced by Holthus).
– Miley for Lilly-Spells in 23
– Gonzalez for Anna “Not Her Real Name” Albertson in 11
The following should no doubt have opponents next year: Albertson, Holthus, Pieper, Spells, Mendoza. Maybe they can run against once they learn the NRCP and become less afraid to make decisions. I can’t even put Ballou on here even though she has done some things that make her look bad because she has made hard decisions based on the law (in civil) and does so in minute orders which is convenient. *Sigh*. Unfortunately, at best these incumbents will have opponents who are… drum roll… also looking to retire from the DAs/PDs office. Wish we had more civil people interested in office.
I have had extremely good experiences with Mendoza. She is not at all afraid to make a SJ ruling. Albertson and Spells are also good, albeit I did not have an SJ experience with them.
Mendoza is very definitive. The problem lies in that she is definitively wrong about 80% of the time, including making findings and asserting arguments that no one has made because they do not exist in the case.
The poster listed departments that were where women replaced men.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Remeber Valorie Vega? Stefany Miley? Going back even further, remember Lee Gates? Stephen Huffaker?
Halverson cannot be left out this group.
Gates was an abomination. Miley always treated me fairly, but had no business being on the bench. Our firm frequently sent LDS attorneys to any contested appearances in front of Huffaker. At least we don’t have any dementia patients on the bench these days.
Have appeared in front of Israel lately?
Israel once had me, and about 12 other attorneys with various matters before show up in person at a mandatory status check at 3 oclock on a random tuesday afternoon. Nobody knew why we were there. He comes out and says that we were all there because the Court was changing up his docket and so the deadlines in our cases might have to be changed. Not even that they were changed or that we had to change them then, that they may be altered in the future. That was literally it. I had never seen such a pointless waste of resources. Could have just sent out an updated scheduling order if and when changes happened. Which they never did.
Told us at a Calendar Call that his department would send out a scheduling order.
Is there a memorial service for Robert Sidell?
If Tim Williams finds you contemptuous, you really are doing something wrong.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/judge-orders-las-vegas-sports-betting-influencer-to-pay-over-30-million-3581321/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOEM7RleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFhR0J6ZEJiZVdqZnZveUNJc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHoOrkrxmLIU24ajbSRY8-pOlHGqjZabpTYf3As5bphbg6oqUs1B1j7-dNjaQ_aem_3b8yy9PcxRZF8axyTzslRA
Males running for the bench next year.
Ganz in 13
Lance Hendron in HJC
Saw Bateman in HJC
Matt Lay in Muni
Who else is going to step up? If not, please shut up about the female majority. At least they put themselves out there and ran and risked a lot.
Meanwhile, more female candidates coming out to run in 26.
District Court:
Emily McFurling already has signs up.
Gwen Smith
Alexandra McCord is running.
Catherine Diamond
Tracy Hibbets
Municiple Court:
Amanda Pellizari
Ray Canady
Alicia Murphy
Catherine Weirch
The Candidates Catherine would be nightmares for the legal community.
Are these names published somewhere?
yes once election period closes
The only good thing about Ganz getting elected would be that I could file a peremptory challenge and avoid him.
Avoiding Ganz would be a mistake, especially given the alternatives you could end up with. I find him to be prepared and decisive in making his rulings, and doesn’t waste time. Plus he understands civil law which is seriously lacking on our current bench!