DOCSLIB.ORG

State-By-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State-By-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources 2009-10 UPDATES TO THE STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON AUTHENTICATION OF ONLINE LEGAL RESOURCES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES ELECTRONIC LEGAL INFORMATION ACCESS & CITATION COMMITTEE February 2010 Editor Tina S. Ching, Seattle University School of Law Authors Steven Anderson, Maryland State Law Library (Maryland) John R. Barden, Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library (Maine) Cathryn Bowie, State of Oregon Law Library (Oregon) Anne Burnett, Alexander Campbell King Law Library, University of Georgia School of Law (Georgia) A. Hays Butler, Rutgers Law School – Camden (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) Kathy Carlson, Wyoming State Law Library (Wyoming) Timothy L. Coggins, 2009-2010 Vice-Chair of the Electronic Legal Information Access and Citation Committee University of Richmond School of Law Library (Alabama, Arkansas and Vermont) Jane Colwin, Wisconsin State Law Library (Wisconsin) Terrye Conroy, Coleman Karesh Law Library University of South Carolina School of Law (South Carolina) Daniel Cordova, Colorado Supreme Court Library (Colorado) Jane Edwards, Michigan State University College of Law, and Ruth S. Stevens, Grand Valley State University (Michigan) Cynthia L. Ernst, Leon E. Bloch Law Library, University of Missouri – Kansas City (Missouri) Robert M. Ey, WolfBlock, LLP (Massachusetts) Janet Fisher and Tony Bucci, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records (Arizona) Jenny R.F. Fujinaka, Hawai‘i Supreme Court Law Library (Hawaii) STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON AUTHENTICATION OF ONLINE LEGAL RESOURCES 2009-10 UPDATE AUTHORS Barbara L. Golden, Minnesota State Law Library (Minnesota) Michael Greenlee, University of Idaho Law Library (Idaho) Kathleen Harrington, Nevada Supreme Court Library (Nevada) Stephanie P. Hess, Nova Southeastern Law School (Florida) Sarah G. Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law Library (Indiana) Kate Irwin-Smiler, Wake Forest University School of Law (North Carolina) Emily Janoski-Haehlen, 2009-2010 Chair of the Electronic Legal Information Access and Citation Committee, Chase College of Law Library, Northern Kentucky University (Executive Summary, Kentucky) Lesliediana Jones, George Washington University Law School (District of Columbia) Ken Kozlowski, Supreme Court of Ohio (Ohio) Brenda Larison, Illinois Supreme Court Library (Illinois) Jennifer L. Laws, U.S. Courts Library (New Mexico) Catherine Lemann, Alaska State Court Law Library (Alaska, Louisiana) Janet Lindenmuth & Mary Jane Mallonee, Widener University School of Law (Delaware) Sibyl Marshall, University of Tennessee College of Law Library (Tennessee) Judy Meadows, State Law Library of Montana (Montana) Creighton J. Miller, Jr., Washburn University School of Law Library (Kansas) Kay E. Newman, Washington State Law Library (Washington) Anita Postyn, NYC Civil Court – Queens County (Connecticut and New York) Leslie Prather-Forbis, Texas State Law Library (Texas) Karen Quinn, Rhode Island State Law Library (Rhode Island) Stacey Rowland, University of Mississippi Law Library (Mississippi) Mary Searles, New Hampshire Law Library (New Hampshire) Ted Smith, North Dakota Supreme Court (North Dakota) STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON AUTHENTICATION OF ONLINE LEGAL RESOURCES 2009-10 UPDATE AUTHORS Candice J Spurlin, McKusick Law Library, University of South Dakota School of Law (South Dakota) Jerry E. Stephens, U.S. Court of Appeals, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Oklahoma) Maryruth Storer, Orange County Public Law Library (California) Jessica Van Buren, Utah State Law Library (Utah) Karen Wallace, Drake University Law Library (Iowa and Nebraska) Gail Warren, Virginia State Law Library (Virginia) Kathleen M. Wilko, Robert Crown Law Library, Stanford University (West Virginia) STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON AUTHENTICATION OF ONLINE LEGAL RESOURCES 2009-10 UPDATE Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................1 STATE REPORTS Alabama ..............................................................................................................................4 Alaska ..................................................................................................................................6 Arizona .................................................................................................................................8 Arkansas .............................................................................................................................10 California ...........................................................................................................................13 Colorado .............................................................................................................................15 Connecticut ........................................................................................................................16 Delaware ............................................................................................................................18 District of Columbia ..........................................................................................................20 Florida ................................................................................................................................23 Georgia ...............................................................................................................................25 Hawaii ................................................................................................................................28 Idaho ..................................................................................................................................29 Illinois ................................................................................................................................31 Indiana................................................................................................................................33 Iowa....................................................................................................................................37 Kansas ................................................................................................................................40 Kentucky ............................................................................................................................43 Louisiana ............................................................................................................................45 STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON AUTHENTICATION OF ONLINE LEGAL RESOURCES 2009-10 UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Maine .................................................................................................................................48 Maryland ............................................................................................................................50 Massachusetts ....................................................................................................................52 Michigan ............................................................................................................................53 Minnesota ...........................................................................................................................57 Mississippi .........................................................................................................................60 Missouri .............................................................................................................................61 Montana .............................................................................................................................62 Nebraska ............................................................................................................................64 Nevada ...............................................................................................................................67 New Hampshire .................................................................................................................68 New Jersey .........................................................................................................................69 New Mexico .......................................................................................................................70 New York ...........................................................................................................................73 North Carolina ...................................................................................................................76 North Dakota ......................................................................................................................78 Ohio....................................................................................................................................79 Oklahoma ...........................................................................................................................81 Oregon................................................................................................................................83 Pennsylvania ......................................................................................................................84 Rhode Island ......................................................................................................................85 South Carolina ...................................................................................................................87
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WC115-BRC-14-181.Pdf)
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals (text not searchable) STATE OF MICHIGAN orker's· Disability Administrative Rules March, 1991 PREFACE This publication is reprinted under the editorial direction of the Legislative Service Bureau from the text of the Michigan Compiled Laws, supplemented through Act 349 of the 1988 Regular Session of the Michigan Legislature, and from the text of the Michigan Administrative Code, supplemented through Issue No. 10 of the 1988 Michigan Register. Materials in boldface type, particularly catchlines and annotations to the statutes, are not part of the statutes as enacted by the Legislature. Legal Editing Division Legislative Service Bureau STATE OF M8CHIGAN Worker's Disability Compensation Act of 1969 AND Administrative Rules March, 1991 Prepared by the Legislative Service Bureau for the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION TABLE OF CONTENTS WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969 Act 317 of 1969 CHAPTER 1 er's compensation magistrates; COVERAGE AND LIABILITY hearings. 418.101 Short title. 418.207 Introductory and continuing legal education courses in worker's com­ 418.111 Persons subject to act. pensation. 418.115 Employers covered; private em­ 418.209 Qualifications advisory committee; pl-oyers; agricultural employers; appointment, qualifications, and medical and hospital coverage. terms of members; quorum; com­ 418.118 Domestic servants. pensation; staff and offices; powers 418.119 Licensed real estate salesperson or and duties of committee. associate real estate broker as 418.210 Development of written examina­ employee.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Certiorari
    No. 17-________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TYSON TIMBS AND A 2012 LAND ROVER LR2, Petitioners, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Indiana Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DARPANA M. SHETH WESLEY P. H OTTOT* SAMUEL B. GEDGE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 10500 NE 8th Street, 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 1760 Suite 900 Bellevue, WA 98004 Arlington, VA 22203 (425) 646-9300 (703) 682-9320 [email protected] [email protected] *Counsel of Record [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Tyson Timbs and his 2012 Land Rover LR2. Respondent is the State of Indiana. Addi- tional plaintiffs before the trial court were the J.E.A.N. Team Drug Task Force, the Marion Police Department, and the Grant County Sheriff ’s Department. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
    [Show full text]
  • Citation Matters: a Quick Guide to Correct Citation Form in Indiana by Prof
    WORDWISE Citation matters: a quick guide to correct citation form in Indiana By Prof. Joel M. Schumm egal citation is critical to provide use bold, Large and Small Caps, or Table 6 of the Bluebook provides courts with essential information other typefaces.2 a detailed list of abbreviations for many about your case. Incomplete or words that commonly appear in case Lincorrect citations may make it difficult 2. Indiana cases citations, such as Corp. (Corporation) or impossible to find the source. Sloppy Citation of a case should include the or N. (North[ern]). citations may also suggest carelessness name of the case, the Reporter and pages Geographic terms, like “State of” or that could lead some judges to be skep- on which it is located, and the court and City of,” should almost always be omitted. tical of other parts of a brief. The goal of year it was decided. For example: K.F. v. this short article is to provide some fairly St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., 909 2.2 Reporter and pinpoint basic but important information about N.E.2d 1063, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Indiana cases appear in the North- citations of the most common sources eastern reporter, currently N.E.3d. If in Indiana. 2.1 Abbreviating words referring to information taken from a Most Indiana court rules shed no Bluebook Rule 10.2.1 provides a specific page of the case, be sure to in- light on citation, but Appellate Rule 22 litany of rules for case names, which clude the pinpoint citation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Lawyer a Publication of the Legal Services Staff Section (LSSS)
    The Legislative Lawyer A publication of the Legal Services Staff Section (LSSS) November 2014 State News Colorado | Delaware | Florida | Indiana | Kentucky | Maryland | Michigan | Minnesota | Missouri | Ohio | Pennsylvania Texas | Virginia | West Virginia panels underneath are being repainted to match the original Colorado | Debbie Haskins stenciling. The trim colors in the chambers are also being repainted to the original colors. Eventually, they hope to take out the dropped ceilings in the chambers and restore Every bill that is introduced in the Colorado General the atrium windows that are underneath the current ceilings. Assembly must be written, edited, revised and approved Colorado built a new judicial building a few years for form by the Office of Legislative Legal Services prior ago and relocated the attorney general’s office into the to introduction. One of the steps that the office follows is new judicial building, freeing up office space in a building that a senior level attorney revises every bill draft after it is across from the State Capitol. This has led to some relo- edited by a legislative editor. Revisors look for legal issues cation of legislative staff offices and some legislators will with bill drafts, such as whether the bill conflicts with a be moving their offices to the newly vacated space. OLLS state constitutional provision or complies with any number did not move, but the State Auditor’s Office moved and of statutory provisions affecting legislation. An internal parts of the Legislative Council moved to the state audi- committee of attorneys and legislative editors met last tor’s vacated space. Musical chairs! Some larger commit- year to see if we could create better standards for revising tee room spaces in the State Capitol are being created out changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The History of the Indiana Trial Court System and Attempts at Renovation John G. Baker' Introduction Since the formation of Indiana as a territory to the present day, advocates of reform of Indiana's trial court system have enjoyed only limited and short-lived success. Throughout Indiana's history, advocates have addressed a number of issues; however, their goal of a single tier organization of trial courts and merit selection of all judges has proved elusive. This Article evaluates the history of the Indiana General Assembly's attempts to address the call for a more organized trial court system and judge selection process in Indiana. This history shows the general assembly's ambivalence in forgoing its control over parochial issues and its recalcitrance in surrendering control over not only the various dockets of the Indiana trial courts, but over the people who administer those dockets—the state's trial judges. As recently as 1986, the Indiana Judges Association advocated a series of reforms for the state's judicial system. 1 This proposal contained a number of changes which required legislative approval, but some required action only within the judicial branch itself. The 1986 proposal was based, in part, on the 2 recommendations advanced by the Indiana Judges Association in 1978. Specifically, the most recent suggestions championed were: 1) a unified, single- tier jurisdiction system of trial courts, 2) selection of all judges by a merit selection system, 3) total state funding of the court system, 4) improved judicial salaries, 5) improved court record keeping, and 6) reexamination of the change of venue and 3 change of judge rules.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • Livingston County: Contact Your Legislators Guide 2019-2020
    Livingston County: Contact Your Legislators Guide 2019-2020 Members of Congress, the Michigan Legislature, and County Boards of Commissioners are elected to be the spokespersons of their constituents. Michigan Citizens must play an important role in the lawmaking process by informing their elected officials of their opinions on issues. There are four main ways to communicate with your elected officials: Legislators are eager to meet their constituents and will try By Visit to accommodate your request for a personal meeting. Please make an appointment in advance, and understand if the legislator is called away for an unscheduled committee meeting or session. You may meet with a staff member who will be welcoming and attentive to your concerns. Legislators also meet with their constituents at coffee hours or towns hall meetings in their districts. More Impactful More By Phone A phone call is a quick and easy way to contact your legislator. Direct phone numbers are provided in the pages that follow. You may also contact the state Capitol switchboard and they will direct your call. Senators: (517) 373-2400 Representatives: (517) 373-0135 By Letter Include your full name and address so staff can confirm you are a constituent and provide a response. For MI State Legislators address letters as indicated below: The Honorable (Full Name) The Honorable (Full Name) State Senator State Representative State Capitol State Capitol P.O. Box 30036 P.O. Box 30014 Lansing, MI 48909-7536 Lansing, MI 48909-7514 By Email Email addresses are provided on the pages that follow. In your email, please include your full name and mailing address.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Guide
    Research Guide FINDING CASES I. HOW TO FIND A CASE WHEN YOU KNOW THE CITATION A. DECIPHERING LEGAL CITATIONS 1. CASE CITATIONS A case citation includes: the names of the parties, the volume number of the case reporter, the abbreviated name of the reporter, the page number where the case can be found, and the year of the decision. EXAMPLE: Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta, 30 Cal.3d 800 (1982). Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta = names of the parties 30 = volume number of the case reporter Cal. = abbreviated name of the case reporter, California Reports 3d = series number of the case reporter, California Reports 800 = page number of the case reporter (1982) = year of the decision 2. ABBREVIATIONS OF REPORTER NAMES The abbreviations used in citations can be deciphered by consulting: a. Prince’s Bieber Dictionary of Legal Abbreviations, 6th ed. (Ref. KF 246 .p74 2009) b. Black's Law Dictionary (Ref. KF 156 .B624 2009). This legal dictionary contains a table of abbreviations. Copies of Black's are located on dictionary stands throughout the library, as well as in the Reference Collection. 3. REPORTERS AND PARALLEL CITATIONS A case may be published in more than one reporter. Parallel citations indicate the different reporters publishing the same case. EXAMPLE: Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta, 30 Cal.3d 800, 180 Cal. Rptr. 628, 640 P.2d 764 (1982). 02/08/12 (Rev.) RG14 (OVER) This case will be found in three places: the "official" California Reports 3d (30 Cal. 3rd 800); and the two "unofficial" West reporters: the California Reporter (180 Cal.
    [Show full text]
  • Merit Selection in Indiana: the Foundation for a Fair and Impartial Appellate Judiciary
    MERIT SELECTION IN INDIANA: THE FOUNDATION FOR A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL APPELLATE JUDICIARY EDWARD W. NAJAM, JR.* INTRODUCTION Forty years ago the people of Indiana amended their constitution to provide for the merit selection and retention of appellate judges.1 After 120 years of partisan judicial elections, the amendment to article 7 of the Indiana Constitution was a significant, if not radical, departure. Under the Constitution of 1852, virtually all Indiana judges were elected on a partisan ballot, and appellate judges were swept in to office and out of office on political tides that had nothing to do with their judicial qualifications or performance. The Indiana Law Review has invited us to reflect upon Indiana’s forty years of experience with merit selection and to consider whether merit selection in practice has achieved its promise to remove appellate judges from partisan politics, to secure and retain able jurists, and to maintain a fair and impartial appellate judiciary. This Article will consider (1) the national judicial reform movement that led to Indiana’s revised Judicial Article, (2) the work of the Judicial Study Commission which recommended merit selection, (3) the debate in the Indiana General Assembly over adoption of the amendment to article 7 of the Indiana Constitution, (4) the campaign for ratification of the amendment, and (5) Indiana’s experience with merit selection, including a brief comparison with judicial elections in other states. The proper role of the courts has been an important topic since the earliest days of the republic. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville concluded, “Scarcely any question arises in the United States which does not become, sooner or later, a subject of judicial debate .
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Briefing Book
    2017-20182017-2018 LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING BOOK 9999thth LEGISLATURELEGISLATURE THE STATE CAPITOL The State Capitol, the seat of state government, is the most widely recognized historic building in Michigan. Each year, thousands come to the Capitol to make their voices heard, see government in action, and learn how laws are made. However, Michigan’s statehouse is more than a place of business and lawmaking. It is also a national historic treasure that represents a successful marriage of 19th century art and architecture and 21st century technology. Dedicated on January 1, 1879, at a cost of approximately $1.4 million, it was the first of three capitols designed by Elijah Myers (the others are in Texas and Colorado) and was among the first to take its inspiration from the United States Capitol. Myers’ use of a central dome and balanced wings, like the nation’s capitol, set the standard for statehouses across the country. Over the years, hard use took a toll on the Capitol. The additions of electricity, telephones, and computers damaged the building’s art and architecture. Crowding became a constant problem. By the late 1960s, 50,000 square feet of new floor space had been created by subdividing the Capitol’s high- ceilinged rooms. Ornate plasterwork, wood trim, and decorative paint—some of the most elaborate and extensive in the nation—disappeared under drop ceilings, layers of plain paint, and wallboard. In 1989, a project to restore the Capitol began. Its success was the result of a highly successful collaboration among legislative leaders, the executive branch, and the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Law Revision Commission
    Term Members: RICHARD D. MCLELLAN, Chairperson ANTHONY DEREZINSKI, Vice Chairperson 40th Annual Report GEORGE E. WARD 2006-2007 WILLIAM C. WHITBECK Legislative Members: SENATOR RAYMOND BASHAM Michigan SENATOR BRUCE PATTERSON REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD GAFFNEY REPRESENTATIVE MARK MEADOWS Law Ex Officio Member: JOHN G. STRAND Legislative Council Administrator Revision Boji Tower 4th Floor 124 West Allegan P.O. Box 30036 Commission Lansing, Michigan 48909-7536 GARY GULLIVER, Executive Secretary Michigan State University College of Law Law College Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Telephone (517) 432-6913 Michigan Law Revision Commission FORTIETH ANNUAL REPORT 2006-2007 MICHIGAN LAW REVISION COMMISSION Term Members: RICHARD D. MCLELLAN, Chairperson ANTHONY DEREZINSKI, Vice Chairperson GEORGE E. WARD WILLIAM C. WHITBECK Legislative Members: SENATOR RAYMOND BASHAM SENATOR BRUCE PATTERSON REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD GAFFNEY REPRESENTATIVE MARK MEADOWS Ex Officio Member: JOHN G. STRAND Legislative Council Administrator 4th Floor, Boji Tower 124 West Allegan P.O. Box 30036 Lansing, MI 48909-7536 Executive Secretary: GARY GULLIVER Michigan State University College of Law Law College Building East Lansing, MI 48824 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmission from the Michigan Law Revision Commission to the Legislature ................................................................... 1 Recommendations to the Legislature: Michigan Economic Development Code Project…………………………… 5 Tribal-State Agreements: The Legislature’s Role in Contracting with Indian Tribes………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Code Revision Commission
    Sen.R. Michael Young Sen. James Tomes Sen. James Arnold Sen. Greg Taylor Rep. Greg Steuerwald Rep. Thomas Washburne Rep. Charles Moseley Rep. Cherrish Pryor Gary Miller • Gretchen Gutman Mike McMahon Hon.Ma~retG.Robb CODE REVISION COMMISSION Jerry Bonnet Matt Light Legislative Services Agency 200 West Washington Street, Suite 301 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2789 Tel: (317) 233-0696 Fax: (317) 232-2554 John Stief(, Attorney for the Commission Authority: IC 2-5-1.1-10 MEETING MINUTES1 Meeting Date: October 15, 2013 Meeting Time: 1:30 P.M. Meeting Place: State House, 200 W. Washington St., Room 233 Meeting City: Indianapolis, Indiana· Meeting Number: 2 Members Present: Sen. R. Michael Young; Sen. James Tomes; Rep. Greg Steuerwald; Rep. Thomas Washburne; Rep. Charles Moseley; Rep. Cherrish Pryor; Gretchen Gutman; Mike McMahon; Hon. John G. Baker; Jerry Bonnet; Matt Light. Members Absent: Sen. James Arnold; Sen. Greg Taylor; Gary Miller. Staff Present: Mr. John Stieff, Director, Office of Code Revision, Legislative Services Agency; Mr. Craig Mortell, Attorney, Office of Bill Drafting and Research; Mr. John Kline, Attorney, Office of Code Revision; Ms. Stephanie Lawyer, Attorney, Office of Code Revision. 1 These minutes, exhibits, and other materials referenced in the minutes can be viewed electronically at http://www.in.gov/legislative Hard copies can be obtained in the Legislative Information Center in Room 230 ofthe State House in Indianapolis, Indiana. Requests for hard copies may be mailed to the Legislative Information Center, Legislative Services Agency, West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2789. A fee of$0.15 per page and mailing costs will be charged for hard copies.
    [Show full text]