Appealing in Nevada : Nevada Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Tami D. Cowden : Nevada Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

OK – so some charges were dropped, and the hearing continues today on the remainder.  If there is no time for closing arguments today, then the final arguments will be briefed. 

That could take awhile.   And so it goes.

At some point, this story just got old to me. And pointless.   The contest ancillary arguments, the media sideshow, and the mean-spirited jokes transformed what could have been a serious issue involving judicial competence into a tabloid event. Frankly, I lost interest.  

The judicial disciplinary process has taken so long that it has very nearly been mooted by the election process.  Since Halverson was not among the top two finishers in the primary, her term of service does have a clear end, regardless of the outcome here.  The few months remaining in Halverson’s term are all that is at stake now. 

What has been lost in this story is the impact on litigants with cases in Dept. 23.  Those cases have been handled by senior judges.  That service is important and I am not knocking the judges who have stepped in to help during this difficult time.  But strategy in a case often involves taking the temperment/attitude/viewpoint of the judge assigned in the case into consideration.   That ability has been hampered in Dept. 23 while this matter has  lingered.

 Fortunately, thanks to the election, there IS an end in sight. This is the first time I’ve been grateful for the judicial election process.  

For those who care, the charges that were dropped were creation of a hostile work environment, improperly contacting a Family Court hearing master and failing to explain written order procedures to her clerks.

See the RJ article: Some Halverson charges dismissed

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here’s the latest in the never ending saga of Judge Elizabeth Halverson. The judge has filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Proceedings, requesting that her Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus  be resolved before she be required to answer the formal statement of charges filed by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

You may recall that the basis of the Petition for Writ was that the Commission had failed to act with appropriate speed in bring the formal charges. Filed prior to the issuance of the formal charges, the Petition calls the delay inexcusable and asks the Supreme Court to prohibit the Commission from taking further proceedings.  Thus, there is just a touch of irony in Judge Halverson’s request that those proceedings, now formally commenced, be further delayed.

However, since the Supreme Court did order the Commission to respond to the Petition, even though by the time of that order, the formal charges had been issued, there is also a certain sense in having the issue of the writ resolved first. 

I’ll let you know how the Supreme Court rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks