Monday, December 21, 2015

First Day Of Winter


  • The special legislative session culminated in a bill being signed by Gov. Sandoval. [RJ]
  • The RJ had a team of reporters focusing on Judges Elizabeth Gonzalez, Mathew Harter, and Joseph Sciscento. [RJ]
  • Here's a look at what Adelson's ownership means for the future of the RJ. [@RalstonReports via RGJ]
  • Judge Douglas Smith was disqualified from three cases with defense lawyer Kristina Wildeveld because a reasonable person "would harbor reasonable doubts about Smith's impartiality."  [RJ]
  • Do party retained experts get absolute immunity? Check out what the Nevada Supreme Court said last week. [Compelling Discovery]

18 comments:

  1. There are a lot of poor judges at the RJC but Smith, just wow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only a few judges are decent, not many: attorneys need to step up to the plate, and get these jokers out. If you get a call from Eglet or Dave Thomas, don't answer. There have to be a few attorney's integrity and honor that cannot be bought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's nearly impossible to oust an incumbent. Then open seats are like a feeding frenzy and Thomas has your number.

      My theory has always been that you need to be a bit of a nut to want to put yourself in the public eye like that. It scares out plenty of good attorneys. And the pay isn't great, unless it's a "promotion" from the DA/PD.

      It's simply time for an appointment system. Not perfect by any stretch but maybe we could at least limit the Halversons of the world. 10 years as a law clerk does not make one qualified as judge.

      Delete
    2. not completely impossible, and we should vote out a lot of incumbents. we should have not have a husband and wife on the same bench, the johnsons.

      Delete
    3. Claiming a judge is bought is such bullshit. If it is so clear then point to a case. WoulD the case not get reversed. Just because someone is a better attorney than you does not mean they paid the judge. Did they pay the jury too?

      Delete
    4. Getting the judge on your side means you're allowed to introduce bullshit witnesses who advance bullshit theories supported by naught but more bullshit. When you own the gatekeeper, all sorts of shit goes through that a jury should never see. And since the trial court is in the "best position" to determine what is actual bullshit vs. what is really horseshit in bullshit clothing, reversals are rare.

      Delete
    5. What bullshit comes into evidence. I don't practice in this area, but you get a chance to cross and produce any evidence to the contrary, not to mention the hallmark case. I get the general allegations and sweeping conclusionary statements, but I am looking for specifics or as some call evidence.

      Delete
    6. I don't believe the whole "bought judges" line, but you can't deny that trial judges in Nevada have an astounding amount of discretion at trial, particularly because a clogged appellate dockets & expense of litigation dramatically reduces the chance that they will be overturned. You suggest that you get a chance to produce evidence, but that does not mean it is getting in. A judge who has it out for you, or is in on the other side, can easily destroy your trial strategy by declaring certain documents as inadmissible hearsay. E.g. relying on the business judgement rule, "well the records were not kept pristine, so there is questions as to authentication." Denied.

      When you combine that type of power with solicitations for campaign contributions, then you have at least the appearance of impropriety each time the judge rules in favor of a donor. The stench will stick around as long as the current system is in place. An appointment system brings a whole set of new problems, since it is harder to track the money.


      Maybe we should just have lawyers vote on the judges? Kind of like prom royalty. I nominate JAWS as King, but I am not sure who would be queen.

      Delete
    7. If you don't think a lot of judges are not "bought and paid for," then you need a dose of reality. Just follow Dave Thomas' crew, Wiese is a perfect example. He changed from a rooster to a hen for Thomas in order to be his "client."

      Delete
    8. Least anyone forget, Wiese was a plaintiff attorney prior to becoming a judge. When his decisions appear more favorable to plaintiff attorneys, it's not bias or his being "bought," it's because he actually agrees with their position on that issue. Plaintiff attorneys don't need to buy a judge that already agrees with them on legal issues. Was it really a surprise to anyone that Wiese wrote a 30-page opinion holding the cap on med mal damages was unconstitutional, much less "bias" in favor of the particular plaintiff attorney before him. Wiese argued to get rid of the cap countless times when he practiced.

      Be wary of the former insurance defense attorneys that get elected because you know those defense firm don't donate to anyone, so they must have received contributions from someone.

      Delete
    9. 10:08 is either Wiese or Thomas. No one really likes Wiese, but we thank you for your feedback.

      Delete
    10. Unless Wiese was writing the entry from the bench, I doubt it.

      Delete
    11. Wiese, you and your staff need to do their job, instead of responding to legitimate complaints against you.

      Delete
    12. 10:08 here (not Wiese, Thomas, or any of their staff), I'm just laying out some truths. To be a plaintiff attorney, you have to view the world in an interesting way (i.e., everyone is a victim, and insurance is around solely to pay policy limits in every case without regard to the actual injury/damages, and anything less from an insurer is obviously bad faith), so don't be surprised when you get pro-plaintiff rulings from a former plaintiff attorney.

      Delete
    13. 12:20, nice try. Wiese sucks. You are obvious. Have a nice day!

      Delete
    14. I like to imagine 12:25 is Wiese.

      Delete
  3. Let us also not forget the HOA scandal that would implicate the construction defect judges, but the judiciary is obstructing the release of that evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yawn, I could go on and on, but you simpletons keep thinking there is no corruption in this town's and this state's judiciary.

    ReplyDelete