holding that custody determination statute creates no classification of an older parent, either on its face or in its application
How later courts described this case
- holding that custody determination statute creates no classification of an older parent, either on its face or in its application
- noting that, when used in a statute, “may” is permissive unless the statute demands a different interpretation to carry out the Legislature’s intent
- explaining that “may” can be interpreted as “shall” in order to carry out the Legislature’s intent, which in the instant case was to make mandatory the requirements set forth in NRS 107.086(5)
- upholding an award of permanent partial disability benefits to an undocumented alien, but finding that the IRCA preempted an award of vocational rehabilitation benefits that would facilitate future employment within the United States
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Shearing, J.,
concurring:
I agree with Chief Justice Maupin’s analysis of the law; however, I do not agree that a remand is required “for a more fact-intensive determination.”
The record is clear that Angel Tarango is employable in his present condition. SUS has already found that he is fully capable of employment, but is only restricted from lifting over fifty pounds. He has been compensated for this ten percent disability. He can work but just not at a job requiring lifting more than fifty pounds and not legally in this country. Therefore, he is not eligible for rehabilitation benefits.
I agree with the majority in affirming the judgment of the district court.