Court Rules: July 2009 Archives

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In an unpublished decision, which has been the subject of great media attention, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the DMV was wrong to deny a personalized license plate of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.


About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Court Rules category from July 2009.

Court Rules: January 2009 is the previous archive.

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

Court Rules: July 2009: Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.0