Tuesday, December 11, 2012

More Judges? Yes, Please!

Two little bits of recent news about area judges. First, as reported in the RJ, the Senate Judiciary Committee has a confirmation hearing set for Andrew Gordon tomorrow. Jennie Dorsey is still being vetted by Senator Dean Heller and so it is unlikely she will be confirmed as a federal judge before the end of the year. As you will recall, Senator Heller is rather fickle about judicial appointments, having sat on the nomination of Judge Elissa Cadish for quite some time now due to a gun control related answer she gave in a judicial survey. As the RJ reported, Senator Harry Reid has indicated that he will continue to push for confirmation of Judge Cadish to the federal bench into 2013.

In other news, the Las Vegas Sun reported that the Annual Judiciary Report confirmed that it is not just in your head that there is less work this year than last. Over 35,000 fewer cases were filed in 2012 than in 2011. Despite this drop off in filing, Clark County courts are still the busiest in the state. Another nugget from the article is that Chief Justice Cherry says the Court intends to ask the legislature to put an intermediate appellate court back on the ballot in 2014. We wish them luck! (Just what we need in Nevada--more judges!?)

10 comments:

  1. How could anyone (besides close-minded old folks who never vote to pass anything in this state) be against an intermediate court of appeals? - 2500 cases filed at the Nevada Supreme Court in 2012, with only 7 justices.

    This state does not need the Nevada Supreme Court to hear landlord/tenant and family law disputes. It needs an intermediate court to screen out that garbage (like the vast majority of other states). Maybe then it wouldn't take two years to process an appeal and the court could focus on the real important issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 6:18--you really think our seven bought and paid for justices are going to move any quicker with an intermediate appellate court? My bet is that they use the free time to increase their social networking. Reality is money and money is justice in Nevada.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it would be a useful conversation to consider if the current NV Supreme Court settlement judges don't already constitute an inefficient and largely powerless intermediate court and that it would be better to have the real thing. Replacing one with the other might not represent much of a change in the court budget either. Comments?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Except that the parties have to pay for the settlement "judges." I like the dickheads who pretend they are actual judges instead of court appointed mediators.

    ReplyDelete
  5. December 12, 2012 1:35 AM - OK, a rough way of putting it, but I'll put that down as one vote in favor of...

    ReplyDelete
  6. 6:18

    Ask the cow counties, including Reno. They're the ones that voted down the IAC in 2010. Must be pretty easy to not understand why you need another court when all your legal issues are resolved by walking down the street and yelling at Fred the grocery store owner / county judge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I want a cheaper, faster appeal that my clients could actually use that would start generating precedent on little issues like whether or not requests for admissions are admitted if not answered. Judge Israel ignored the statute this morning and gave defense counsel a break from having to atone for his mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Get used to it. Every judge violates that rule.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Has anyone made use of private trials since they were adopted? I'm surprised there haven't been more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Couple of comments:

    @ JR: The Supreme Court settlement judges have never constituted or acted as an IAC. They are mediators (with admittedly varying degrees of effectiveness) but issue no rulings and set no precedent. If you are referring to the mandatory mediation as a screening mechanism, perhaps-- but its not an IAC.

    @1:35-- the parties do not pay for S.Ct Settlement Judges. Settlement Judges are appointed by the court at no cost to the appellate parties.

    ReplyDelete