Courts Commons^™

The Court Of Small Things, The Curse Of Legal Superstition: The Precipitous Decline Of Small Claims Court, Why It Matters, And What Can Be Done About It, Telia Mary U. Williams

Nevada Law Journal

This Article addresses the precipitous decline of small claims courts in the United States and argues that their erosion is more than administrative; it is a democratic and constitutional crisis. Small claims courts were once the laboratories of everyday justice, where ordinary citizens could access law without lawyers, ritual, or mystery. The seemingly minor disputes of the small claims court illuminate the democratic soul of American law. Yet, over recent decades, filings have declined dramatically, and the locus of power has shifted from the poor to repeat-player institutional actors. This is in part due to what I call, “legal superstition,” …

Vegas Aqua, Llc Vs. Jupitor Corp., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 05, 2026), Miranda Romero

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The plain language of Nevada Short Trial Rules (NSTR) Rule 3(d) requires a district court judge to adjudicate objections to proposed judgments rather than a short trial judge, and public policy requires adjudication of any proposed NRCP 59 motions.

Endogenous And Dangerous, Brian N. Larson

Nevada Law Journal

Empirical studies show that courts frequently cite cases that the parties did not cite during briefing and oral arguments—endogenous cases. This Article shows the cognitive and rational dangers of endogenous cases and presents an empirical study of their use. I contend that judges should avoid using endogenous cases in their reasoning and opinions. This Article’s first significant contribution is to provide the first exhaustive treatment in the American legal literature of the rational bases upon which defeasible legal deductions and legal analogies may be built and the critical questions or defeaters that can weaken or bring them down. As far …

Judicial Consensus: Why The Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

Like Congress and other deliberative bodies, the Supreme Court decides its cases by majority vote. If at least five of the nine Justices come to an agreement, their view prevails. But why is that the case? Majority voting for the Court is not spelled out in the Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court rules.

Nor it is obvious that the Court should decide by a majority vote. When the public votes on a ballot measure, it typically makes sense to follow the majority. The general will of the electorate ought to govern. But judicial decisions are not supposed to …

What Did Those Sixteen Justices Say?, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

Everyone is finally noticing that the current Supreme Court is changing its jurisprudence on religious freedom. The commentators are finally paying more attention to the fact that seven of the Court's current Justices were raised Catholic. What role have Catholics played in the Supreme Court's history? This article traces their contributions on religious freedom and civil rights, starting with Chief Justice Taney and ending with Justice Barrett.

The Vanishing Core Of Judicial Independence, Evan C. Zoldan

Nevada Law Journal

With Congress firmly in control of the jurisdiction, resources, and structure of the federal courts, the scope of the judiciary’s independence is limited indeed. If there is an attribute that can be considered the core of judicial independence, it is the power of the federal courts to decide cases pending before them. In a pair of recent decisions, however, the Supreme Court has called into question whether the federal judiciary possesses even this limited attribute of independence. This Article examines how the Court has blurred the line between the judicial and legislative powers by ceding to Congress the authority to …

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

What Is The Meaning Of "Plain Meaning", Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The American approach to construing texts (statutes, regulations, contracts and documents generally) stresses decision through determining the “plain meaning” of the document based on the court’s reading of the text. Where the court finds plain meaning on the face of text, it generally refuses to consider additional contextual information or extrinsic evidence of meaning.

Notwithstanding its status as the dominant approach to interpretation, the plain meaning concept has not been well defined or operationalized. Despite judicial confidence in the plain meaning approach, courts have wisely been willing to sidestep it and eschew the rather clear facial meaning of text when …

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Martinez Guzman V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 26, 2020), John Mccormick-Huhn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the ambiguity of the meaning “territorial jurisdiction,” a term of art found in NRS 172.105. The Court held that NRS 172.105 incorporates Nevada’s venue statutes and grants a grand jury the authority to “inquire into a [criminal] offense so long as the district court that empaneled the grand jury may appropriately adjudicate the defendant’s guilt for that particular offense.”

Sociolegal Research, The Law School Survey Of Student Engagement, And Studying Diversity In Judicial Clerkships, Shih-Chun Steven Chien, Ajay K. Mehrotra, Xiangnong Wang

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …

“Remarkable Influence”: The Unexpected Importance Of Justice Scalia’S Deceptively Unanimous And Contested Majority Opinions, Linda L. Berger, Eric C. Nystrom

Scholarly Works

What constitutes judicial influence and how should it be measured? Curious about the broader role that rhetoric plays in judicial influence over time, we undertook a rhetorical-computational analysis of the 282 majority opinions that Justice Scalia wrote during his 30 years on the Supreme Court. Our analysis is the first to examine the full majority opinion output of a Supreme Court justice using a unique “medium data” approach that combines rhetorical coding with quantitative analysis relying on Shepard’s Citations and LexisNexis headnotes. The resulting study casts doubt on the ability of judicial authors, including Justice Scalia, to control the extent …

Absurdity In Disguise: How Courts Create Statutory Ambiguity To Conceal Their Application Of The Absurdity Doctrine, Laura R. Dove

Nevada Law Journal

Although explicitly invoked only in rare cases, the absurdity doctrine is far more robust in practice than commonly assumed. This is because of a phenomenon I call “absurdity in disguise,” wherein judges use the anomalous or undesirable results of applying a statute’s ordinary meaning to “create” statutory ambiguity, opening the door to a variety of interpretive tools that would otherwise be unavailable. Ironically, the use of ambiguity to conceal the use of the absurdity doctrine is a direct result of judges’ increasing acceptance of textualist methods of statutory interpretation. Because textualism eschews results-oriented interpretive approaches, judges who wish to avoid …

Your Honor, On Social Media: The Judicial Ethics Of Bots And Bubbles, Katrina Lee

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Disabling Ada Retaliation Claims, Nicole Buonocore Porter

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Gambling Addiction: Increasing The Effectiveness And Popularity Of Problem Gambling Diversion In Nevada Courts, Kimber Laux

UNLV Gaming Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lemmings Or Lions: Empirical Measure Of Juror Independence In The Face Of Belief Mirroring, John Campbell

Nevada Law Journal

Required by the Sixth and Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, jury trials underpin the justice system. Whether a criminal defendant walks free or spends the rest of his life in jail turns on a jury vote. And so does whether a hundred-billion dollar, multinational corporation pays damages for alleged environmental contamination. But are jurors up to the task? Competing images in popular culture, in scholarly literature, and among practicing lawyers and judges paint jurors in diametrically different ways, as either lemmings or lions. These depictions are honest disputes created by literature and anecdotes that could support either narrative. …

Bit By Bit: Breaking Down The Ninth Circuit's Frameworks For Jury Misconduct In The Digital Age, Jesse Gessin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Justice As Fair Division, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court's decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …

Invisible Adjudication In The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Michael Kagan, Rebecca Gill, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

Non-precedent decisions are the norm in federal appellate courts, and are seen by judges as a practical necessity given the size of their dockets. Yet the system has always been plagued by doubts. If only some decisions are designated to be precedents, questions arise about whether courts might be acting arbitrarily in other cases. Such doubts have been overcome in part because nominally unpublished decisions are available through standard legal research databases. This creates the appearance of transparency, mitigating concerns that courts may be acting arbitrarily. But what if this appearance is an illusion? This Article reports empirical data drawn …

Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) family courts have subject matter jurisdiction in divorce proceedings that involve issues otherwise outside the scope of family courts, (2) parol evidence may not be considered to determine party intent to form separate property agreements and self-settled spendthrift trusts where the written agreements are valid and unambiguous, (3) a court order equalizing assets between different spendthrift trusts is improper because the NRS protects against court orders that move assets from trusts and against moves that do not benefit trust beneficiaries, (4) spendthrift trusts may not be reached for payment of personal obligations not known at …

The Use And Abuse Of Mutual-Support Programs In Drug Courts, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

There is a large gap between what we know about the disease of addiction and its appropriate treatment, and the treatment received by individuals who are ordered into treatment as a condition of participation in drug court. Most medical professionals are not appropriately trained about addiction and most addiction treatment providers do not have the education and training necessary to provide appropriate evidence-based services to individuals who are referred by drug courts for addiction treatment. This disconnect between our understanding of addiction and available addiction treatment has wide-reaching impact for individuals who attempt to receive medical care for addiction in …

Telling Stories In The Supreme Court: Voices Briefs And The Role Of Democracy In Constitutional Deliberation, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

On January 4, 2016, over 112 women lawyers, law professors, and former judges told the world that they had had an abortion. In a daring amicus brief that captured national media attention, the women “came out” to their clients; to the lawyers with or against whom they practice; to the judges before whom they appear; and to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

The past three years have seen an explosion of such “voices briefs,” 16 in Obergefell and 17 in Whole Woman’s Health. The briefs can be powerful, but their use is controversial. They tell the stories of non-parties—strangers …

Grace V. The Eight Judicial District Court Of The State Of Nevada, Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This discusses whether Nevada justice courts have jurisdiction to rule on motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence. In March of 2014, the State filed a criminal complaint against LeCory Grace in the Las Vegas Justice Court. The complaint charged Grace with one count of possession of a controlled substance. At Grace’s preliminary hearing, Grace orally moved to suppress evidence that may have been illegally obtained. The justice court concluded that the search was unlawful, suppressed the evidence derived from the search and dismissed the case against Grace. The State appealed the justice court’s order of suppression and the Eighth Judicial …

Introduction: Magistrate Judges And The Transformation Of The Federal Judiciary, Daniel W. Hamilton, Thomas O. Main

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

United States Magistrate Judges: Present But Unaccounted For, Philip M. Pro

Nevada Law Journal

The relationship between United States district judges and United States magistrate judges is unique within the American judiciary. United States magistrate judges are the first judges encountered in most federal civil or criminal cases and play an increasingly important role in the adjudication of virtually every case in United States district court. Yet, while the behavior of Article III judges has been the subject of active academic scrutiny, the behavior of magistrate judges, who are appointed to renewable eight-year terms by their Article III district judge colleagues, has largely been ignored.1 This paper reports the results of interviews of thirty-four …

Article I Judges In An Article Iii World: The Career Path Of Magistrate Judges, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Nevada Law Journal

Federal magistrate judges are a relatively new creation, officially dating back only to 1968 in a federal judicial system which dates to 1789. Unlike federal district and appellate judges, whose constitutional authority is rooted in Article III, federal magistrate judges are a creation of Congress through Article I. Since their inception as special masters, magistrate judges’ responsibilities have steadily grown, now presiding (with the parties’ consent) over civil as well as misdemeanor criminal trials. The institutional differences between magistrate and district judges are stark: selection, compensation, and tenure, to name a few. At the same time, the roles of these …

The Comparative Outputs Of Magistrate Judges, Christina L. Boyd

Nevada Law Journal

Do federal magistrate judges make different decisions and produce distinct judicial outputs from district judges? To provide initial empirical evidence on this question, this study utilizes federal district court data covering issue areas including employment discrimination, broader civil rights, intellectual-property rights, and personal-injury torts. The data indicate that magistrate judges are actively involved in civil cases, with as many as sixty-seven percent of cases having one or more magistrate judges serving in some role. These magistrate judges commonly preside over settlement conferences, decide discovery motions, issue reports and recommendations on dispositive motions, preside over status, management, and scheduling conferences, and …

"Nothing Less Than Indispensable": The Expansion Of Federal Magistrate Judge Authority And Utilization In The Past Quarter Century, Douglas A. Lee, Thomas E. Davis

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.