Thursday, May 12, 2016

Sandstorms


  • The Supreme Court rejected Las Vegas Sands' attempt to remove Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez as trial judge. [RJ; Las Vegas Sun]
  • Sands has agreed to pay a $2 million fine as result of a complaint from the Ganing Control Board. [Vegas Inc.]
  • The Court also ruled against an effort to repeal the commerce tax. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Magistrate Leen issued a temporary protective order on evidence in the Bundy matter. [RJ]

41 comments:

  1. http://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm/

    We are all screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nevada Supreme Court just ruled that casinos could 86 someone off the property for any non-discriminatory/unlawful reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see nothing earth-shattering or surprising about that decision. It is private property and there was no evidence of exclusion based on race, etc. I think it is interesting that neither side chose to introduce evidence of the reason why the guy was 86'd to begin with. Now with all of that said, Bob Nersesian can be a pain, but I am glad he is around to keep them somewhat honest when it comes to things like physically detaining people, photographing them for the "book" and that sort of thing.

      Delete
    2. You'd be right that the decision wouldn't necessarily surprise anyone but it is a big win for the casinos. Being able to get a dismissal at the outset of litigation is huge. As for neither side introducing the reason for the 86, my guess is that Plaintiff didn't want to introduce it in the pleadings and Defendant couldn't argue any reason in a motion to dismiss. it actually works out to be a cleaner decision because there won't be attempts to distinguish the holding based upon the reason for the boot.

      Delete
    3. This is the majority rule. Nersesian admits that is the Majority Rule but was asking the Court to deviate from it.

      Delete
    4. I actually find myself agreeing with Pickering's dissent when it comes to conventioneers. Common law didn't allow innkeeps to exclude without cause, and to the extent they wanted to exclude, it was their burden to show why the individual should be kept out. If you want to participate in a convention, you don't get to pick where it's located, and the market doesn't allow for a competing convention in another meeting center. For that convention, that hotel holds a monopoly.

      Delete
    5. Snell heading downtown to new digs.

      Delete
    6. 12:17 - Pickering's dissent is logical when considering the issues in a vacuum, but tested against the realities of casino operations it does not hold up. Casinos are surely not in the business of 86ing people without a good reason. Further, the Nevada statute gives casinos the ability to boot people off their premises for any non-discriminatory or unlawful reason. Given that the casino premises is not strictly limited to the gaming floor, it's pretty clear that the law abrogates the common law to the extent that an innkeeper wouldn't be able to keep guests out without cause. Finally, if there was ever an issue where an 86ed person had to attend a convention/wedding at a hotel, it would be up to that person to reach out to the hotel and attempt a reconciliation or agreement. If the hotel still refuses to allow a person in, then there may be an issue, but the Court was not faced with that scenario.

      Delete
    7. Uh, that was exactly the scenario before the Court. Doc gets 86'd from Harrah's hotel in MS, but wants to attend conference at Paris Las Vegas. So he contacts Caesars and is told he essentially can't attend any conferences held at any Caesars property ever again. Or even properties owned by someone else, but only managed by Caesars.

      Delete
    8. Remember when the bar exam was done in a casino. Wouldn't that be a great fact pattern?

      Delete
    9. The Hacienda

      Delete
  3. I hear Snell and Wilmer are moving downtown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The new ghetto-fabulous theme. Watch for the managing partner's new caddy with spinners. Feel the Byrne.

      Delete
    2. Is Snell and Wilmer still around?

      Delete
  4. Las Vegas Law premieres tonight. Who is watching?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have it set to record. I prefer to delay watching things by 20 mins so I can fast forward through the 15-20 mins of commercials.

      Delete
    2. They copied the name of Bucky's reality show from years ago. No originality.

      Delete
    3. I remove myself from the reality of dealing with jerks in the profession after and during hours. WTH would I want to watch a reality show on my off time, the few that I get, about colleagues?

      Delete
    4. What network?

      Delete
    5. Investigation Discovery (ID)

      Delete
    6. Las Vegas Law is on Investigation Discovery (Channels 104 and 1104 on Cox) at 10:00 p.m.

      Delete
  5. Thoughts?

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lasvegaslaw/las-vegas-law-0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, sure 'whistleblower'. Once a victim, always a victim?

      Delete
    2. Didn't this nut give up yet. I know anonymous comment.

      Delete
  6. Who is running against Judge Baucum, I want to support her opponent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shana Bachman-don't know anything about her.

      Delete
    2. http://www.shanabachman.com

      Delete
    3. http://www.shanabachman.com

      Delete
  7. Anyone else hear rumors about a judge and local criminal attorney?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't even go there. It isn't true and you don't want to spread it further than it already has gotten. They are just friends

      Delete
    2. How about somebody mention which judge and local criminal attorney are just friends?

      Delete
    3. At 9:02: so not true! Unless "friends" with benefits counts! Does his wife of MANY years have a clue?

      Delete
    4. Its no different than the Judge and the CD Attorney which everyone knew about for years.

      Delete
    5. At 10:13 so of course that makes it ok?!

      Delete
    6. 10:13 here-- OK? No it's not OK. I don't have a Judge giving me Black Robe Fever and until I get mine, I don't want anyone getting theirs!

      Delete
  8. I would like to hear this rumor can you please repeat it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, no shit, don't leave us hanging. Do tell!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh wow, just saw this. Yeah, this is not a rumor, it is a fact. Friend of a friend of said criminal defense attorney who told me.

    ReplyDelete