Monday, September 17, 2018

Puff Puff Crash


  • The DA's office is filing 2nd degree murder charges for a woman who was DUI with marijuana in her system and who caused an accident that killed an 8-year old boy. [LasVegasNow]
  • In another incident a driver who struck two jaywalking pedestrians admitted to having smoked marijuana before the accident. [LasVegasNow]
  • People are ending up in deportation hearings for traffic tickets alone. [TNI]
  • Here's a puff piece on healthcare lawyer Ayesha Mehdi. [Vegas Inc.]
  • Want to search every campaign contribution made to AG candidates Aaron Ford and Wes Duncan? [TNI]
  • There are 11 applicants for appointment to the open family court position--some familiar faces and some new names. [NVCourts]

18 comments:

  1. To all the civil lawyers who complain on here all the time about the slow pace of the Nevada Supreme Court - stop filing so many writ petitions. Do you have any idea how much of the court's time is consumed dealing with writ petitions and motions for stays? There should be some sort of changes to the appellate rules or writ statutes to drastically reduce the number of frivolous petitions, perhaps something making the unsuccessful petitioner pay the real party's fees and costs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dawn would be a great family court judge. Nice to see her name on there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps a gatekeeping step, a motion for leave to file an extraordinary writ, in 5 pages or less, where the court can more easily dispense with these without wading through a 50 page filing to see if its anything they want to take on. Also higher standards: if it's appealable, make the party appeal it and stick to your guns, let the district court do its job. Serial writs on an incomplete record are just bad for jurisprudence generally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. This didn't happen so much until about the last ten years or so. There used to be a (unwritten?) rule that writs from a denial of an MSJ would never, ever, be considered. That was relaxed a few years ago, and now writs are being filed every time someone gets in a snit about an adverse ruling on a motion. Enough already.

      Delete
    2. Part of the problem is it takes so much time and money to get to trial. The Writ is needed because some Judges make bad decisions and why wait another 3 years and 100k to complete a trial, appeal and get the case reversed. Wrota are needed when it effects claims at trial.

      Delete
    3. With what is on the bench today, we need the writs.

      Delete
  4. Family Court practitioners, in general, don't seem too thrilled with the 11 applicants for the vacancy. But that raises the question, if they are so critical of those who applied, why did they not throw their own hat in the ring?

    Acknowledging that such is a valid question to put to those who criticize those who have the guts to put their name out there for consideration, there is no blinking at the fact that it does not appear to be a really impressive list of applicants.

    In fact, few seem worthy of individual comment. Perhaps Shann Winesett is the one with the most intellectual fire power of the group, although it is debatable how well that translates to the ability to move a heavy calendar where many of the cases are centered on fact-driven disputes.

    Gibson, Pickard and Bailey have been serving as hearing masters, so at least there is some sort of judicial record, performance and reputation which can be evaluated, and perhaps will be of some help in deciding what type of judges they will make.

    As for the rest of the batch, most Family Court practitioners indicate that they tend to be mediocre at best.

    But, again, perhaps some of those disenchanted practitioners should have also put their name and reputation out there for consideration.

    Criticizing others who take risks and chances, while we sit back safely, free from highly public scrutiny, is a common failing of most humans--I've been guilty of that, and most of my colleagues have as well.

    I at least admire all 11 for submitting themselves to this arduous process, where all semblance or privacy go by the way side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C'mon! Jason will tell you his favorite 74 BBQ restaurants from the Bench. That has to be worth something.

      Delete
  5. 10:21 is too restrained and diplomatic in his/her view.

    Yes, I do somewhat admire anyone who puts their name out there and risks losing any semblance of privacy, but this is hardly a noble undertaking on the part of the applicants. They are not doing this to "serve the public". They want the perceived status and recognition of being judges. Plus, these days it tends to pay better, so the decent, reliable pay check and benefits may be a better situation than many of the applicants are currently experiencing financially and professionally.

    And, yes, most Family Court practitioners, at least based on my discussions, believe there is a fair degree of separation between Winesett and the others.

    So, if ability is the key factor, probably Winesett gets the appointment. But if the appointment is primarily centered around political considerations, then it will probably not be him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's so bad about Jason?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mary Perry, Jason Stoffel - no on both.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Winesett, Throne, or Forsberg. Any one of these three would be good. I practice 100% in Family Law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who are the bottom three? Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bottom three all missed the application deadline :)

      Delete
  10. To:3:22--As to your question of the bottom three,1:03 answers two-thirds of your question, by offering two names of applicants they believe must be avoided.

    ReplyDelete