them was not fraudulent so as to warrant dismissal on that score.”). Defendants have not briefed this Court with regard to the “well-settled” nature of the law on which the state court cases exist which are more recent, and which are either distinguished from Rinehart, or discuss facts which would permit a distinction from Rinehart. See, e.g., Littlefield v. U.S., 927 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 907, 112 S.Ct. 299, 116 L.Ed.2d 242 (1991) (implying that a distinction might be present where the employer was in a better position than the contractor to anticipate dangers and implement precautions, or where there was a question as to the competency or solvency of the independent contractor); Karadanis v. Newcomb, 698 P.2d 872, 874, 101 Nev. 196, 199 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Sims v. General Tel. & Elec., 107 Nev. 516,
holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property holding as a matter of law that natural condition present was open and obvious to all who would encounter it holding that a landowner owed no duty of care to a contractors employee in the situation posed by the parties holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries holding that a landowner may be liable for injuries to an independent contractors employee if the hazard ous condition was not open and obvious if the condition was not a necessary consequence of the construction and if the landowner maintained possession and control of the premises