LAS VEGAS (Nov. 1, 2019) – Founding partners James J. Pisanelli and Todd L. Bice, of the litigation firm Pisanelli Bice PLLC, announced today the firm earned seven Tier 1 rankings by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” for 2020.
The firm’s top-level designations are in the areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Appellate Practice, Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Litigation-Construction, Litigation – Mergers and Acquisitions, and Litigation – Real Estate.
Pisanelli Bice has a long history in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® rankings, having consecutively earned recognition since 2011.
Pisanelli Bice was named to the top tier based on a comprehensive evaluation process that includes client and peer evaluations of the firm’s responsiveness, client needs assessment, integrity, competitiveness, civility and cost-effectiveness, as well as a review of additional information provided by law firms themselves as part of the submission and application process. To be eligible, firms must have at least one attorney in the current edition of Best Lawyers in America©, which is one of the oldest and most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession.
“We’re honored by this recognition from U.S. News and Best Lawyers,” Pisanelli said. “It’s very gratifying to have our firm’s approach and commitment as a full-service litigation firm recognized by the nation’s leading ranking services.”
Pisanelli Bice’s Tier 1 rankings will be featured in U.S. News & World Report’s Legal Issue this month. The rankings also are available at http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com.
About “Best Law Firms”
The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer reviews from leading attorneys in their field, and reviews of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer who is included in Best Lawyers in America© in that particular practice area and metro. For more information on U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms,” please visit http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/.
RENO — Nevada’s attempt to force the federal government to remove half a metric ton of weapons-grade plutonium can move forward, a federal judge in Reno ruled Monday.
The nine-page decision from U.S. District Judge Miranda Du means Nevada will be allowed to file an amended lawsuit asking the court to require the U.S. Energy Department to remove the plutonium that was secretly shipped into the state last year.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shot down Nevada’s initial appeal because the complaint only asked to block the shipment of plutonium to Nevada and did not request that it be removed. When the state filed the first lawsuit against the Energy Department in 2018, it was not yet known that the nuclear material had already been shipped to the Nevada National Security Site, a federal facility located roughly 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The federal government did not disclose that information until this year.
A federal judge in South Carolina last year ordered the Energy Department to remove one metric ton of weapons-grade plutonium from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. A half-ton was shipped to Nevada last fall, and the Energy Department announced in August that another half-ton had been shipped to either Texas or New Mexico.
In April, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said she had struck a deal with Energy Secretary Rick Perry to remove the plutonium from Nevada starting in 2021, and that no additional plutonium would be sent to the Silver State.
A claim by the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the Las Vegas Sun has breached a decades-old Joint Operating Agreement can move forward in Clark County District Court, a judge ruled Wednesday.
But the prospects of the claim may depend significantly on another legal matter — a lawsuit filed this week in federal court by the Sun against the R-J.
Clark County District Judge Timothy Williams heard arguments from the legal teams for both newspapers before ruling that the R-J could proceed with its claim that the Sun — which is delivered inside the R-J — is an inferior product and that the JOA, which is set to expire in 2040, should be terminated.
Wednesday’s hearing, which lasted for about an hour at the Regional Justice Center, came a day after the Sun filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging any attempt by the R-J to end the JOA prematurely would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Much of Sun attorney James Pisanelli’s argument before Williams centered on what he said was the need for the matter to be heard in federal court as opposed to state court.
“The Review-Journal’s attempt to terminate this JOA must be scrutinized by the only court that has jurisdiction to do antitrust scrutiny, which is the federal court,” Pisanelli said. “Federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over antitrust laws.”
Click here to read the full article.
The Las Vegas Sun is accusing billionaire Sheldon Adelson of committing a “modern-day smashing of the printing presses” through his purchase of rival newspaper The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Sheldon, 86, is the owner and chairman of the Las Vegas Sands, the world’s largest casino operator. The Sun’s strongly worded Sept. 24 antitrust complaint accuses Sheldon of purchasing the Review-Journal to begin “a systematic silencing of all his local media critics.”
The Review-Journal recently filed a lawsuit against the Sun in a Nevada state court in what the Sun says is a “baseless and unlawful” claim to end a joint operating agreement between the two newspapers. The JOA is the result of a federal law that “provides a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers to combine production, marketing, distribution, and sales, so long as their editorial and reportorial functions are maintained separate and independent,” the complaint said.
The move by the Review-Journal to end the JOA violates federal antitrust law, the complaint filed Sept. 24 by the Sun in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada said.
Click here to read the full article.
A Las Vegas judge has issued a partial preliminary injunction in a drawn-out, hard-fought dispute between marijuana companies and the state, prohibiting certain businesses who won a conditional state license in December from moving forward to open dispensaries.
The decision from Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez on Friday enjoins the state from doing a final inspection on marijuana businesses that did not provide the complete identification of each prospective owner, officer and board member, pending a trial. It wasn’t immediately clear how many businesses are affected by the decision and will be barred from launching operations; a spokesman for the state Department of Taxation could not be reached Friday afternoon.
“The [Department of Taxation] acted beyond its scope of authority when it arbitrarily and capriciously replaced the mandatory requirement of [Ballot Question 2], for the background check of each prospective owner, officer and board member with the 5 percent or greater standard,” Gonzalez wrote about one of the main complaints brought in court — that the application process violated the will of voters.
She found several faults with the state’s process of vetting applications, noting that…
Click here to read the full article.
