lvcourtsblog.com

District Court Judge Douglas Herndon determined this morning (Jan. 23) that a portion of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act is constitutional, upholding the civil side of the statute, while at the same time declaring the criminal portion of the statue failed to meet a constitutional standard. Under the judge’s ruling, civil penalties will remain, with smokers facing a $100 fine for smoking in a tavern, restaurant, theater, school or airport. However, with the criminal penalties removed, no one will go to jail for smoking. In announcing his ruling, Judge Herndon said he chose to side with voters who chose to make indoor areas smoke free by “allowing the measure to go forward with its full operation and purpose, which is to ban smoking.”

District Court Judge Douglas Herndon issued a preliminary injunction this morning preventing law enforcement from enforcing criminal penalties against violators of the Nevada Indoor Clean Air Act. However, the judge ruled that the general ban against smoking passed by voters in November will remain and violators will be subject to civil penalties.

District Court Judge Douglas Herndon approved a temporary restraining order this morning in the case, Fame Operating Co. v. George J. Chanos, that will delay enactment of Nevada’s anti-smoking initiative for at least two weeks in Clark County. In making his ruling, Judge Herndon indicated this was not a judicial challenge to the outcome of the election, but an opportunity to allow the plaintiffs to question the constitutionality of the law and seek judicial help in implementing the law based on the process provided by Nevada’s Constitution.

The judge’s ruling affects only those plaintiffs and defendants named in the lawsuit, effectively preventing law enforcement agencies in Clark County from enforcing the law against the plaintiffs named in the complaint. The temporary restraining order has no effect on businesses or law enforcement agencies in other Nevada counties. The law statewide goes into effect Dec. 8.

A Dec. 19 hearing date has been set for arguments regarding the plaintiffs challenge to the anti-smoking law.

ComplaintÂÂ

This morning Eighth Judicial District Court Judge David Wall denied a Writ of Mandamus requested by the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana (CRCM). In its filing, CRCM sought to compel the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Nevada Board of Regents, and others, to refrain from political speech in opposition to Question 7, an initiative seeking to legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by regulating and taxing the sale of the drug in Nevada. In his decision, Judge Wall said government representatives had a right and a duty to discussion the proposal and its impacts on the community. He added that the defendants did not violate state ethics rules while discussing the proposal during public hearings.

Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Douglas Herndon this morning ordered the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to release a copy of a video surveillance tape from a local parking garage to attorneys for Congressman Jim Gibbons and Chrissy Mazzeo.

This morning Judge Douglas Herndon ordered Clark County Recorder Frances Deane removed from office. Judge Herndon found Deane had committed official misconduct in 16 or 18 counts. Deane has until Friday at 5 pm to vacate the County Recorder’s Office due to malfeasance in office.

Senior District Court Judge J. Charles Thompson decided today that the preliminary hearing for Darren Mack will proceed as planned tomorrow in the Reno Justice Court.

This morning in Clark County’s Eighth Judicial District Court Senior Judge Courtroom, Judge Thompson presided over a request by Mack’s attorneys to stay the preliminary hearing based on an implied or actual bias on the part of judges in Washoe County. In addition, the defense requested that Judge Thompson disqualify the Justice Court and District Court Judges in Washoe County due to the nature of the case and the intense media scrutiny.

Judge Thompson denied the request ruling no evidence exists to show that the Justice of the Peace is unable to serve as an unbiased judge to determine if the case should be bound over to the District Court. He also refused to rule on disqualification of the District Court judges citing that the case had not been moved to the District Court, so therefore, no implied or actual bias could be shown at this time.

Judge Thompson did indicate he was willing to consider disqualifying Washoe County’s District Court Judges if the case is bound over to the District Court for trial. The preliminary hearing will proceed as planned tomorrow (Aug. 30) in Reno Justice Court.

This morning Judge Jackie Glass heard arguments regarding the defendants request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which she denied. The trial date has been scheduled for January 22, 2007 in District Court Dept. 5.

Judge Kathy A. Hardcastle granted a motion this morning by Boulder City to keep a petition off the November ballot that would have sought approval from voters to sell 107,000 acres of vacant city land in the Eldorado Valley and divide the proceeds up among the residents of the city. Hardcastle ruled the Nevada Consitution does not allow individuals to convert public property for a private benefit.

Judge Gerald Hardcastle issued a decision this afternoon (June 22) in the matter of the parental rights of Tamara Bergeron. The State of Nevada sought to terminate Bergeron’s parental rights and severe her from her daughter Brittney. Judge Hardcastle denied the state’s request to terminate parental rights.

In an excerpt from the ruling, Hardcastle states:

The reunification process has been ended by TAMARA’s incarceration. BRITTNEY will not be physically reunified with her mother during her minority. To the degree that BRITTNEY is concerned about being returned to her mother’s care and living the life she knew prior to January 2003, that concern is satisfied. BRITTNEY will not be physically reunified with her mother.

But is it in BRITTNEY’s best interests to terminate TAMARA’s parental rights? The Department case manager says that it is not. This Court believes that it is not. BRITTNEY’s best interests are served by allowing TAMARA and BRITTNEY to continue to have a parent-child relationship, even if that relationship is other than traditional.

BRITTNEY’s love for her mother is so substantial that loss of that relationship would be detrimental to BRITTNEY. BRITTNEY’s desires for stability and safety have been assured. Her desire for a continuing relationship with her mother can be assured by denial of this Petition. It is simply not in her best interest to remove her mother from her life.

The hope is that free of the influence of the notoriety of this case, BRITTNEY and TAMARA will have a future relationship mutually agreeable to both. BRITTNEY also has the great benefit of having a truly unique foster family. Both TAMARA and the foster family love BRITTNEY. Both can be important in her life. There is no reason to choose one over the other. There is certainly no reason to exclude one over the other.

Since the mother’s rights are not terminated, there is no interest in terminating the father’s parental rights at this point.

Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED. This Decision shall constitute Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as the final Judgment in this matter.

This decision comes as a result of a trial held in Dept. D of the Family Court before Judge Gerald Hardcastle which concluded on June 16, 2006.