Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, This Law Has Got To Go?

Monday's comment section had a lively little discussion about the constitutionality of NRS 18.130 requiring a plaintiff who resides out of state to pay $500 to secure costs. It got us thinking--despite the fact that the NRCP was revised, there are a lot of problematic rules and laws in Nevada still on the books. Some of them still exist because no one wants to spend the time or money to fight to remove them. Others are unchanged because they are used infrequently. What Nevada laws that are currently on the books drive you crazy and need to be fixed? What rules do you wish the committee had changed? Is there a rule we are missing and desperately need?

32 comments:

  1. Rumor is Trevor Atkins has been appointed to DC8. Any confirmations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can confirm

      Delete
    2. I can confirm that I heard on this blog that it is true. I hope to hear from an actual source soon.

      Delete
    3. Sisolak finally made a decent decision. All of the other appointments are a joke.

      Delete
    4. Whatever. I'm not buying it. We all know it's gonna be a woman. #quotas

      Delete
    5. There aren't any women nominated.

      https://nvcourts.gov/AOC/Committees_and_Commissions/Judicial_Selection/News/Judicial_Commission_Nominates_Three_Names_for_Governor_to_Fill_Eighth_Judicial_District_Court_Seat/

      Delete
    6. Or so you think. #thetruthisoutthere

      Delete
  2. Wow! Great choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Omg, a lawyer with a brain who has a nice temperament who will apply the law and not ignore the facts. What an RJC miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a plaintiff's attorney, I hope this is true. Temperament, demeanor, knowledge of the law, and experience in the trenches of civil litigation all mean so much more than which side of the "v" you come from. Plus, an insurance defense lawyer knows better than anyone what a bunch of SOB's those companies can be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't see how 18.130 affects interstate commerce. Sure, it's an added requirement for out of state plaintiffs, but I think it's a stretch to say it unduly burdens interstate commerce itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is the argument a preemption/dormant commerce clause one? I thought the argument was EP, in which case the commerce clause is irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. In that case you're looking at rational basis scrutiny. Good luck.

      Delete
  6. The Offer of Judgment rules could use some clarification, especially when you get into arbitration/short trial. The OOJ and prevailing party rules are a mess when you try to read them all together.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everyone read the letter from Dennis Kennedy to Josh Reid that Ralston posted on his Twitter feed. Holy crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben Titicaca. With all due respect to Carlos Danger this is the best fake name since Ron Mexico.

      Delete
    2. Wow....just wow. Very creative, yet very frat boy and childis actions for someone in his position. Is he a partner at LRRC? Is he still going to be?

      Delete
    3. I dont tweet, can someone post it?

      Delete
    4. https://www.scribd.com/document/421094370/08072019-094216-Scan

      Delete
    5. There is an artivle, short, in SF Gate. Every Reid is dirty, except for his brother and any pets.

      Delete
    6. Josh Reid certainly has a great deal of time on his hands to engage in such junior high school conduct. It also appears a considerable amount of the harassment occurred on LRRC's clock.

      Delete
    7. My question is who leaked the letter?

      Delete
    8. Paging Mr. Titicaca, Mr. Titicaca, Mr. Ben Titicaca.

      Delete
    9. Very Harry-esque the ends justify the means kind of behavior

      Delete
    10. I don't think it was leaked a- it would be a public record (and the RJ journalist responded to Ralston's tweet saying he should have posted it as well). This is so crazy. And not that I think it's the most newsworthy story ever, it is salacious enough that the lack of reporting on it is turning me into a mini conspiracy theorist. #thereidmachineabides

      Delete
    11. Letter went from a private firm to a private firm. Not a public record.

      Delete
    12. Well the first statute in the NPRA says "The use of private entities in the provision of public services must not deprive members of the public access to inspect and copy books and records relating to the provision of those services" (NRS 239.001(4)) but that could mean anything.

      NRS 239.001(4) mandates public access to “records relating to the provision of those [public] services” that are provided by “private entities” on behalf of a governmental entity. See LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding.

      Delete
    13. Hey Josh... Here is $150,000 to STFU!

      Delete
    14. Hey, Josh. Jerry Tao should have won.

      Delete
  8. This is easy to make fun of, and believe me I have, but you have to be mentally disturbed to act this way.

    ReplyDelete