# Tarango v. State Industrial Insurance System

> Nevada Supreme Court · June 13, 2001 · 117 Nev. 444

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787133

## Case

- **Full name:** ANGEL TARANGO, Appellant, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM, an Agency of the State of Nevada, Nka EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEVADA; And CHAMPION DRYWALL, Respondents
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 13, 2001
- **Citations:** 117 Nev. 444; 117 Nev. Adv. Rep. 40; 25 P.3d 175; 2001 Nev. LEXIS 39
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shearing
- **Judges:** Leavitt, Shearing, Maupin, Young, Agosti, Rose, Becker
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787133

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- explaining that, generally, in statutes, "may" is permissive, while "shall" is mandatory

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787133. Public record. Not legal advice.