Recently in Court Rules Category

This and That

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It looks like the Nevada Supreme Court will not be releasing any opinions today.  I suggest the following for your Thursday reading time:

Supreme Court Receives Indigent Defense Study.  The study is available here.

The new Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure are in effect (as of July 1, 2009).  They are difficult to find on the Court's website, but this link will take you to them.

The Nevada Supreme Court is cranky because some lawyers routinely fail to complete their CLE.

It's a huge surprise to some of us who handle appeals in criminal cases, but it appears that the Nevada Supreme Court is actually interested in hearing requests for bail pending appeal.  It has even agreed to hear oral argument on the issue in one case.  I recommend that we all start filing bail motions in appropriate appeals.  Sample motions are available here.

In an unpublished decision, which has been the subject of great media attention, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the DMV was wrong to deny a personalized license plate of "HOE," as in Lake Tahoe, but shorter.  The Court finds that the DMV's exclusive reliance on was wrong. The decision in DMV v. Junge is available here.  The Volokh Conspiracy gives its take on the Court's analysis.

The Ninth Circuit issued a great Batson decision yesterday:  Ali v. Hickman.  It's a must read for both trial and appellate counsel.

Karl Roved testified under oath, but in a closed-door appearance, about his role in the dismissal of US Attorneys, including Nevada US Attorney Dan Bogden.

It's been a bad month for Washoe County District Attorney Dick Gammick.  The Ninth Circuit has affirmed in part and reversed in part a ruling of a federal district court concerning allegations that Gammick and his staff interferred with the work of a school district truancy officer.  The officer claimed that Gammick Assistant District Attorney John Helzer and Washoe County retaliated against for contacting the Nevada Attorney General about his concerns over the accuracy of a nurse in the Child Abuse Response and Evaluation program.  The Circuit found that a First Amendment retaliation claim was improperly dismissed because the speech at issue involved a matter of public concern and was made by the officer, who was a former detective, as a private citizen rather than his official capacity. The Circuit also found that the district court properly determined that the Defendants did not enage in any adverse action related to Botello's employment as a school police officer. The order in Botello v. Gammick is available here. Gammick is facing additional problems as three women contend that they were verbally abused by an employee of the Washoe County District Attorney's Office and that officials, including Gammick, retaliated against them when they complained about the alleged harassment.


On December 31, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure in a 116 page order.  Despite my suggestion/protest, the Court is allowing 4-to-a-page transcripts in all cases, meaning that I will get to read thousands of pages in 6-point font.  The Court won't allow me to file briefs in a 6-point font, so my only means of protest in this blog -- thus the small print for this post and this post only.  Color me cranky.  Other changes are for the most part reasonable and welcome.  The amendments shall be effective July 1, 2009 and apply to all appeals docketed in the Court on or after that date.  The Court orders the State Bar of Nevada to develop a CLE about the changes.

It's news to me as I don't remember any postings or requests for input from the public or bar, but on November 18, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an Order Amending Eighth Judicial District Court Rules 1.53, 1.61, 1.64, 1.65, 1.92, 1.93, 5.28 and 7.2.  The amendements are effective 30 days from the date of the order.

Rule 1.53 concerns court employee participation in employee organizations regarding terms and conditions of employment.

Rule 1.61 concerns assignment of business matters.

Rule 1.64 concerns assignment of criminal cases.

Rule 1.65 concerns assignment of and lack of peremptory challenges in constructive defect matters.

Rule 1.92 concerns actions for medical or dental malpractice.

Rule 1.93 concerns the process for the removal and discipline of a pro tempore judge pursuant to Short Trial Rule 3(c).

Rule 5.28 concerns withdrawal of an attorney in limited services ("unbundled services") contracts.

Rule 7.20 concerns the form of papers presented for filing, exhibits, documents, and legal citations.  Documents must now include counsel's fax number and e-mail address.  Exhibit numbers should be placed on an 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheet of white paper immediately preceding the exhibit for copies to be filed with the court clerk.  If a courtesy copy is delivered to chambers, all exhibits must be clearly divided by a tab. 

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the Court Rules category.

Cases in the News is the previous category.

Death Penalty is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Court Rules: Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.0