Thursday, April 13, 2017

Freezeframe


  • Judge Susan Johnson and Judge Joanna Kishner are swapping courtrooms for what is anticipated to be a year-long civil trial. [eighthjdcourt blog]
  • Here's a reminder from Compelling Discovery that the Rules of Civil Procedure are being revised. 
  • Las Vegas is the home to the nations first needle vending machine for drug users. [RJ]

21 comments:

  1. "One Queensridge Homeowners Association v. Perini Building Company"

    What's the scoop on that? Who are the players?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Long after it no longer matters, the NV Supreme Court finally issued a ruling in the Judge Ramsey Recall case today. Judges cannot be recalled as public officers, but can only be removed from office by the judicial disciplinary system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally moot. Ramsey resigned early March, got her settlement check from NLV, and has moved to Florida.

      Delete
    2. Long after it no longer matters the Nevada Supreme Court also issued a discipline decision affirming a 6 month suspension (stayed) effective February 2016. It truly is as if the Nevada Supreme Court has no concept of time sensitivity in matters.

      Delete
    3. @10:20 Not totally moot. The NV S.Ct. just took the easy way out and protected their backsides against an angry populace. These guys were more concerned with their own necks than interpreting the Nevada Constitution. Read Pickering's blistering dissent.

      Delete
    4. 11:39 NAILS IT! Pickering's Dissent was blistering and was right on the money. Protect their own asses. For the 2 Justices which I perceived as most business friendly, Pickering and Hardesty slug it out occasionally on opinions.

      Delete
    5. If we were to give both sides(majority and dissent) the benefit of the doubt(which, admittedly might be a bit naïve) and assume that political motivations were not paramount, it would seem both sides have a valid point.

      It would then boil down to: When the Judicial Discipline Commission was created, was that intended to be the exclusive remedy for removing problematic judges, or was their an intent to retain the option, codified in the State Constitution, of Recall Elections.

      My guess is that no one thought of the issues at the time, and that's why it wasn't addressed. But if it were thought of at the time, and was addressed, what would be the result--exclusive remedy, or retain both as remedies.

      I have no idea, and it's very difficult to guess how people, if they had thought of the issue back in the 60's and 70's, would have decided the issue. And for that reason, each side is supposing quite a lot when they assume what was, or wasn't, meant or intended decades ago.

      But since everyone else is guessing how they would have decided the issue decades ago had they thought of it and addressed it, I'll join the fray. They probably would have decided that the Commission is a potentially effective way to better police the judiciary, and that since the goal was in fact to much better police the judiciary, that we would also retain constitutional remedies such as possible recall elections for judges and other public officials.

      If back in '76 when the Commission was created, we did not reach the issue as to whether that eliminates a constitutional remedy, I don't see much justification over 40 years later to, almost as an afterthought because the issue wasn't addressed way back then, to rule : "oh, by the way, they forgot to mention way back in '76 that they should have removed that constitutional safeguard. So just to clean up the issue, we will now remove it."




      Delete
    6. The delay was to avoid a bill being introduced during session by legislators who answer to voters. And the Supreme Court is slow as fuck.

      Delete
    7. Do those two dynamics truly explain a delay of over 40 years?

      Delete
    8. My heart is with the majority (since judges are elected, we have recall elections every 6 years, otherwise, let the judicial commission determine continuing suitability lest we allow billionaires to put up money to rid themselves of an annoying, but otherwise good, judge); however, the dissent appears to be legally correct. The Judicial Commission is in addition to the rights of the people.

      Delete
    9. With all due respect to the justices in the majority opinion (you all know what it means when a sentence starts with all due respect), it seems completely asinine to conclude that the voters would take away from themselves the power to remove an elected official that they no longer support or want. It would make more sense to view the creation of the Commission as an attempt to put judicial discipline on more of an auto-pilot system so that the voters didn't have to be bothered by every allegation of misconduct.

      Without a system like the Commission, there would only be the 2 methods of dealing with misconduct, Impeachment (the Legislature only meets every 2 years for 120 days, so it has a lot of important business to handle in that short time which an impeachment trial would distract from.. unless the Governor called a special session.. an expensive proposition) or a recall election (a difficult and expensive option to gather the correct number of signatures from the correct voters and the cost of a special election). Without something like the Commission, misconduct that doesn't reach the level of ultra severe would basically go unpunished and there wouldn't be an effective deterrent to other judges from abuses/misconduct.

      The fact an employer (the voters are effectively the employer of elected officials) delegate the day to day operations and HR issues to a person or entity (read the Commission) doesn't mean they foreclose from themselves the power to deal with the issue themselves instead of by their agent.

      Delete
  3. Now I get the titles for the last two blog entries. J. Geils passed away. Love stinks. :(

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion? Amazing. I am crossing my fingers that another one will issue before summer. Burn the midnight oil!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well they issued an opinion on something that effects them. Oh and they issued a second opinion, this one on what name a kid will be tagged with when the parents cannot agree. Short answer: Mookie.

      Delete
    2. They issued an opinion on a topic that they are compelled to address quickly because it involves elections and they issued it..... more than 18 months after the oral argument.

      Delete
    3. An even more disturbing example of justice delayed is when Judge Jeff Sobel was sanctioned, and ultimately removed from office by the Commission, and the Supreme Court then adopted the decision.
      Neither the Commission or the Court bothered noting anywhere in the decisions, including in the footnotes, that not only were matters rendered moot by Judge Sobel losing his seat to Judge Jackie Glass in Sobel's re-election bid, but that discipline was made dramatically more moot by the fact that Sobel died after his re-election defeat.

      And to make matters even more absurd, after all that was done, and the Commission ruled that he could never serve in any judicial capacity in the state, they concerned themselves with subsequently addressing an issue Sobel had raised prior to his death--whether the preclusion preventing him from ever serving as a judge again also precluded him from serving as a private mediator if selected by the parties. The Commission decided to throw a bone to the(by then) long deceased Judge Sobel, and graciously ruled that the preclusion from again serving as a judge does not prevent him from conducting private arbitrations upon stipulation of counsel. Now, if anyone actually then decided to select him to conduct such arbitrations, it certainly posed some challenges far greater than I could imagine.

      Delete
    4. JEFF SOBEL IS DEAD. BLOG IS DEAD.

      Delete
    5. 90% of the attorneys reading this blog don't even know that Jackie Glass was a judge (she was pleasant...) let alone Sobel. So go back to creating your five year plan not to die.

      Delete
    6. Justice delayed is justice denied.

      Delete
    7. Jackie Glass was pleasant? Only if your name is Steve Wolfson.

      Delete