Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Unrealistic Orders


  • If you weren't at the ribbon-cutting ceremony or haven't yet seen the photos, you must look at the Supreme Court of Nevada's plush new Vegas courthouse. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Metro settles lawsuit for $199K involving shooting of dog. [RJ]
  • Recreational pot creates problems for federally-regulated casinos. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Anyone have more info on Judge Navarro withdrawing a NRAP 5 question from the Nevada Supreme Court?
  • Sanctuary cities vow to fight pulling of federal funding. [KNPR]

27 comments:

  1. Why were there what appear to be British soldiers (although in Blue) at the courthouse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the article, they were "Models dressed as George Washington". That is offensively stupid. Seriously, "Models dressed as George Washington"? What the f*ck?

      Whatever. The whole thought of having that gilded palace housing the do-nothing NSC is a little sickening. I'm starting to really dislike Nevada. I guess we have so much money in the State coffers that we can go on spending binges like this. I'd rather a utilitarian building, fewer taxes, and a reasonable annual renewal at the DMV.

      Delete
    2. The state didn't build this building. The NSC is just renting it, which is what it was doing at the RJC. A private entity built it for the NSC and is renting it to them, albeit at a cheaper rate than they were getting from the RJC. So the state is actually saving money here. You can put your outrage away now.

      Delete
    3. The plan is for the Nevada Supreme Court to buy this building at the end of the lease. This building was designed for the court, with their input. It has no other use. There are no other purposes to which it could be used. This was used to circumvent state purchasing laws and regulations. It's shameful on every level.

      Delete
    4. Outrage still out. The building is offensively gaudy, horribly over the top.

      Delete
    5. It is The Taj MaLaw.

      Delete
  2. The Judge Navarro NRAP 5 case is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 70767. The Order certifying the question was entered July 7, 2016.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the Order certifying the question was withdrawn per Ninth Circuit precedent, (See 17-08424 filed 3/14/17) not because there was no answer from NSC. Although, clearly, there was no answer from NSC between filing on 7/12/16 to 3/14/17.

      Delete
  3. Overall, I like the new Supreme Court building.**

    Over the last year, one of the things we should all appreciate a little more is how crucial respect for institutions is in a democracy. This building conveys dignity, gravitas and reminds parties, lawyers and the public of the solemnity of the rule of law. Sure, state supreme courts technically could do their job working out of an airport hanger if they really had to. But there are good reasons we put our institutions in buildings that evoke respect for the institution.



    **I don't like:
    -Use of sans serif on neo-classical architecture.
    -The dome.
    -The arched windows.
    -The ridiculous 'footmen' yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition to your list, I don't like:
      - the target balls in front of the building
      - the mismatched columns
      - the bird baths on the second floor
      - the statute of lady justice that has the sword higher than the scales
      - the large windows on the second floor, over the smaller windows on the first floor
      - the neon lighting
      - the modern surveillance cameras which distract from the building - they could have figured out something nicer and more discreet
      - the different cuts on the marble facade which do not line up or connect correctly
      - the replica of a basement courtroom for a second floor structure.

      I'm fine with the Carson City building - it's nice, but not over the top. This was a lot of wasted expense for a building which looks like a strip club. Maybe it would work in another city, but this building type has already been claimed by the skin purveyors here.

      Delete
    2. The San Serif font really does bust my chaps too. I thought it ruined the whole damn thing.

      Delete
    3. Oh my god, I thought I was the only one annoyed by the sans serif font. It wouldn't be so bad if if were a squared off sans serif, but all the edges are rounded which makes it look like it's just one step up from comic sans. Thank you, fellow pedants, it's good to know I'm not alone.

      Delete
    4. You'll love this then ... The Middle

      Delete
  4. I was in Judge Crockett's courtroom this morning. I think I've only appeared in front of him once before. I really like that guy. He was prepared. His comments and analysis were well-organized, efficient and clear. He was respectful, but firm, to the parties and attorneys, even when they had an untenable, ridiculous position. (I don't think I could be a judge for this reason, eventually I would snap at all the bullsh!t and lose it).

    His demeanor is also straight out of central casting for a learned judge- a perfect mix of Yoda/Wilford Brimley/Atticus Finch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except if youre a Plaintiff attorney and don't do things the way he did it in private practice, he makes it more difficult

      Delete
    2. Or unless you are an attorney objecting because the other side wants to continue the trial for the seventh time for their convenience and you dare raise the question of when is enough enough in the case.

      Delete
    3. Why can't we get someone more like Denny Crane or Alan Shore?

      Delete
  5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/elite-law-schools-are-really-tough-to-get-into-but-what-if-youre-tiffany-trump/2017/03/05/9c7836b2-fac9-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.3f9b437d1625

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. she ain't applying to Boyd

      Delete
    2. Who cares? She is a Trump.

      Delete
  6. $199k for a stupid dog?! Great job by the attorney, but no dog is worth more than bowl of kimchi at Hwaro's. Even an adorable pit bull named Hazel. The have plenty of loving and kind pit bulls at the shelter to take poor Hazel's place in the heart of this no doubt documented, productive and peaceful family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't just for the dog. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1671475.html.

      TL; DR: the officers done fucked up.

      Delete
    2. What about immunity? Cops gotta do what cops gotta do.

      Delete
    3. Read the case. If you violate a clearly established constitutional right, your qualified immunity goes bye bye.

      Delete
    4. Headline was misleading. The trial for violating the humans' right mistried when Judge Jones found that jurors were crying over the dog and that was too much dog testimony. However the payout was for the humans. And yes, the rogue cops did fuck up and went way over any reasonable line.

      Delete
    5. I call bullshit. To even think it is right to say there is a difference between Hispanic (Latino!) and white suspects is racist. We are a colorblind society. Why does the description of the suspects matter?? Profiling! Racist! And the dog

      Delete