Entries tagged with “rules of appellate procedure” from Harmfulerror

Via Scotusblog: 

The Supreme Court released revisions in its Rules, effective on Feb. 16.  The Court will no longer consider any request to extend the deadline for filing amicus briefs at the merits stage. It also shortened the word limit on reply briefs on the merits from 7,500 to 6,000.  A press release announcing the revisions is here.  The order implementing the changes, and the text of the revisions themselves, are at this link.

The Nevada Supreme Court has amended NRAP 30(f).  The new rule is effective January 1, 2010 and now provides for the filing of an electronic copy or a cd-rom of the appendix:

(f) Number of Copies to Be Filed and Served.

(1) Paper Copies.  One paper copy of the appendix filed with the clerk, and one copy shall be served on counsel for each party separately represented, unless the court orders otherwise.

(2) Electronic Copies.  A party represented by counsel must submit every appendix on a CD-ROM, and serve a CD-Rom version on all opposing counsel, in addition to filing the required number of paper copies, unless the appendix has been electronically filed in the Nevada Supreme Court or counsel certifies that submitting a CD-ROM version of the appendix would constitute extreme hardship.  A party not represented by counsel who has been granted permission to file documents in proper person under NRAP 46(b) is encouraged, but not required, to submit and serve a CD-Rom version of the appendix, in addition to filing the required number of paper copies.

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In an unpublished decision, which has been the subject of great media attention, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the DMV was wrong to deny a personalized license plate of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