Work Hierarchies and the Social Control of Workers

Creighton Law Review Symposium on Professor Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb’s book, Race Unequals: Overseer Contracts, White Masculinities, and the Formation of Managerial Identity in the Plantation Economy

Bolden v. State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (Oct. 19, 2023)

This case addresses whether the district court had a proper investigative inquiry before ordering the defendant, Bolden, to pay the costs for extradition restitution and psychosexual evaluation. The appeal is concerned with determining the extent to which the district court is required to make an investigative inquiry into a defendant’s ability to pay extradition restitution under NRS 179.225(2) and the psychosexual evaluation cost under NRS 176.139(7). According to the plain language of NRS 179.225(2), the district court is obligated to inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay extradition restitution. The scope of the inquiry is limited to the existing obligations specified in NRS 179.225(a)-(c) which are child support, victim restitution, or administrative assessment. There is no specified way the district court is expected to fulfill their inquiry, and the district court’s duty is considered fulfilled by asking the defendant questions on the record about any obligations within the scope that may be affected by the imposed extradition restitution. The court is then required to determine if the defendant can still meet the prior obligations along with paying extradition restitution. The plain language of NRS 176.139(7) does not require the district court to make the same investigative inquiry sua sponte before ordering a defendant to pay the cost for a psychosexual evaluation. The responsibility to object to costs based on inability to pay is with the defendant. The district court shall only impose the cost of the psychosexual evaluation to the extent the defendant is able to pay

Providence Corp. Development v. Kaycean Buma, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Jul. 13, 2023)

An employee who is injured while on work-related travel does not need to show that the activity which harmed him was foreseeable to his employer in order to recover under Nevada’s workers’ compensation statutes

Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Mar. 16, 2023)

NRS 125C.050 provides that certain relatives and other persons may petition for visitation with a minor child.2 Under the statute, a court may only order visitation when the minor child’s parents “deny or unreasonably restrict visits with the child.”3 When the parents of the child have joint custody and one parent provides the petitioner with sufficient contact with the minor child so that visitation was not denied or unreasonably restricted, the petition for visitation fails regardless of the parent who provides contact

Wishengrad v. Carrington Mortg. Servs. [State of Nevada], 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (May 18, 2023)

NRS 104.3104 provides that certain documents may constitute “negotiable instruments” for the purpose of enforcing a promise to pay. Under NRS 104.3104(1), a home equity line of credit agreement (HELOC) may be classified as a negotiable instrument if it has a defined maturity date and closed draw period. The same HELOC may also be classified as a “promissory note” under NRS 104.3104(5). When the borrowers fail to repay funds provided to them under the terms of an HELOC, the loan servicer and trustee are entitled to foreclose upon the borrowers’ home. Finally, even if a borrower’s property is held in the name of a trust, the property is considered “owner-occupied” when the borrower-trustee is the owner of the home and occupies the home as their primary residence