DOCSLIB.ORG

Llexisnexis Appendix B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Llexisnexis Appendix B LexisNexis Appendix B The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Primary Law International Legal: Argentina-1 Victoria Unreported Judgments Newfoundland & Labrador Cases from Publisher: Albrematica S.A. Publications International Legal: Canada-41 1971 (Vol 1) (Argentina Legislation) Canadian Legal Information Nova Scotia Cases from 1969 (Vol 1) International Legal: Australia-26 Alberta Cases from 1976 (Vol 1) Ontario Cases from 1984 (Vol 1) Australian General Case Law Alberta Regulations TOC Ontario Reports from 1931 ACT courts Unreported Judgments British Columbia Cases from 1991 (Vol 1) Prince Edward Island Cases from 1971 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Canada Federal Court Cases from 1986 (Vol 1 Criminology (Vol 1) Recueil des arrets de la Cour federale du Australian Administrative Law Reports Canada Federal Court Reports Canada de 1971 Australian Bar Review Canada Regulations Table of Contents Regulations of Canada Consolidated Australian Capital Territory Reports Canada Supreme Court Reports from 1876 Regulations of Ontario Australian Company Law Reports Causes du Quebec 1987-1995 (Vols 1-68) Regulations of Ontario Table of Contents Australian Competition and Consumer Law Consolidated Regulations of Alberta Regulations of Quebec Journal Consolidated Regulations of British Revised Statutes of Quebec Australian Corporations & Securities Columbia Saskatchewan Cases from 1980 (Vol 1) Reports Consolidated Regulations of British Supreme Court of Canada Cases from Australian Family Law Reports Columbia TOC Jan. 1995 Australian Insurance Law Journal Consolidated Statutes of Alberta Table of Contents for QUEREG Australian Intellectual Property Reports Consolidated Statutes of Alberta Table of Table of Contents for QUESTA Australian Journal of Contract Law Contents Tax Court of Canada Australian Journal of Corporate Law Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia The Lawyers Weekly Digest and Australian Journal of Family Law Consolidated Statutes of British Consolidated Digest Australian Journal of Labour Law Columbia Table of Contents International Legal: European Australian Law Reports Consolidated Statutes of Canada Communities-10 Australian Motor Vehicle Reports Consolidated Statutes of Canada Table of European Communities Cases Information Australian Northern Territory Reports Contents EC Commission Decisions Relating to Australian Property Law Journal Consolidated Statutes of Ontario Competition Australian Torts Law Journal Consolidated Statutes of Ontario Table of EC Commission proposals Federal Court of Australia Unreported Contents EC Legislation Judgments Exchequer Court Reports EC National Provision cites High Court of Australia Unreported Federal Court of Canada Court of Appeal & EC Parliamentary Question cites Judgments Trial Division EC Treaties New South Wales courts Unreported Manitoba Cases from 1979 (Vol 1) European Court Cases reported & Judgments National Cases unreported Tasmanian courts Unreported Judgments New Brunswick Cases from 1969 (Vol 1) European Court of Human Rights Cases Victoria Reports LexisNexis – Confidential and Proprietary Page 2 SBTNL0 Fri Jul 17 10:32:11 EDT 2009 The information provided in this report is current as of July 17, 2009 and is subject to change without notice. Reproduction in any form by anyone of the material contained herein without the express written permission of LexisNexis is prohibited. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Primary Law European Court of Justice Cases (Celex Lex Mundi The European Company Across Malaysian Statutes (English) Database) from 12/54 Europe Malaysian TOC (English) INFO-92 North American Free Trade Agreement International Legal: Mexico-3 International Legal: General-26 North American Free Trade Agreement Mexico Legal Information Federal International Trade Cases Panel Decisions Jurisprudencia - Tribunal Fiscal de la GATT Basic Inst. & Sel. Docs Russian Legal Texts Federacion International Trade Commission U.S. Treaties in Force Jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Administrative Law Judge Decisions U.S. Treaties on LEXIS from 1776-1984; Mexico - Mexican Caselaw International Trade Commission Decisions selected docs from 1985 to present Leyes del Estado de Mexico - State of International Trade Commission General International Legal: Hong Kong & China-8 Mexico Laws Counsel Memoranda Hong Kong and China Legal Information International Legal: New Zealand-8 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement Panel Annotated Ordinances of Hong Kong New Zealand General Case Law Decisions Halsbury's Laws of Hong Kong Laws of New Zealand US CBP Bulletin - Decisions Hong Kong Cases Laws of New Zealand - Current Table of US CBP Rulings - HQ Series Hong Kong Public Law Reports Contents US CBP Rulings - NY Series Hong Kong Unreported Judgments New Zealand Administrative Reports U.S. Federal Int'l & Foreign Domestic Laws of Hong Kong New Zealand Current Law Legal Info Table of Contents for Halbury's Laws of New Zealand District Court Reports Archive of Abolished/Invalid Economic Hong Kong New Zealand Family Law Reports Laws of the Russian Federation Table of Contents for the Annotated New Zealand Law Reports Basic Documents of International Ordinances of Hong Kong New Zealand Resource Management Economic Law International Legal: India-2 Appeals Eastern & Central Europe Legal Texts India Legal Information International Legal: Singapore-1 Economic Laws of the Russian Federation Law Reports of India, Unreported Series- Singapore Law Reports by Garant-Service Supreme Court Decisions International Legal: South Africa-4 GATT Panel & WTO Decisions LRPTIN Law Reports of India Reported South Africa Legal Information GATT Uruguay Round Agreements on Series - Supreme Court of India South Africa Constitutional Law Reports Tariffs and Trade Decisions South Africa Statutes Hungarian Rules of Law in Force International Legal: Malaysia-6 South Africa Table of Contents for Statutes IBA Arbitration & ADR Malaysian Legal Information South Africa Tax Cases International Court of Justice Advisory Malayan Law Journal Articles International Legal: United Kingdom-73 Opinions Malayan Law Journal Unreported Irish Reported and Unreported Cases International Court of Justice Filings Judgments Northern Ireland Reported and Unreported International Court of Justice Judgments Malaysian Court Practice Cases International Legal Materials (Treaties and Malaysian Law Journal - Cases and Scottish General Case Law Agreements) Articles Scottish General Acts LexisNexis – Confidential and Proprietary Page 3 SBTNL0 Fri Jul 17 10:32:11 EDT 2009 The information provided in this report is current as of July 17, 2009 and is subject to change without notice. Reproduction in any form by anyone of the material contained herein without the express written permission of LexisNexis is prohibited. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Primary Law Scottish Reported and Unreported Cases Butterworths Harvey on Industrial OUP's European Journal of International Scottish Session Cases Relations & Employment Law Law Scottish Statutory Instruments Butterworths Hill & Redman Law of OUP's Industrial Law Review United Kingdom English General Legal Landlord & Tenant OUP's International Journal of Information Butterworths Human Rights & Judicial Constitutional Law English Acts and SIs for practice research Review OUP's International Journal of Law & English Cases decided in 1981 for practice Butterworths Journal of the Law Society of Information Technology research Scotland OUP's International Journal of Law Policy English Current General Statutory Butterworths Local Authority Employment & The Family Instrument Law OUP's International Journal of Refugee English Reported Cases & practice Butterworths Mithani Disqualification Law directions, tax cases, unreported cases Newsletter OUP's Journal of Conflict & Security Law Isle of Man Acts of Tynwald Butterworths Money Laundering Law OUP's Journal of Environmental Law Public and General Acts of England and Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation OUP's Journal of International Criminal Wales Butterworths Planning Law Service Justice The Law Reports of England & Wales Butterworths Property Law Service OUP's Journal of International Economic United Kingdom Legal Current Awareness Butterworths Road Traffic Service Law Highlights for the week Butterworths The Law of Education OUP's Law, Probability & Risk Quantum of damages table Butterworths The Law Society's Gazette OUP's Medical Law Review UK Accumulated summaries of legal Butterworths The New Law Journal OUP's Oxford Journal of Legal Studies developments Butterworths Tolley's Company Law & OUP's Statute Law Review UK Bills in progress, New bills, Royal Insolvency Privacy & Data Protection assents Butterworths United Kingdom Legal Vathek's Common Law World Review Weekly UK Accumulated summaries of Journals Vathek's Environmental Law Review legal developments EMIS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking Feedback to Stephanie Miller Explanation Ranking Methodology Combined Score Impact- Factor Currency-Factor
    Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking Feedback to Stephanie Miller Explanation Ranking methodology Combined score Impact- factor Currency-factor All Subjects For Editorial R Co CaC Information I Jn C an mb se os A Select left, then All Countries F ls F English non- k . s t English 20 Multi Sep B 11 Jnl-name words arate then General Specialized older surveys C Check create Student-edited Peer-edited Refereed spreadsheet To submit Print Online-only articles to law journals Ranked Non-ranked Submit clear Submit via Rank (e.g. 15,17-25) LexOpus 0.33 ImpF-Weight (0..1) Combi Rank Journal ned 04- 11 1 Harvard Law Review 100 2 Columbia Law Review 85.8 3 The Yale Law Journal 80.3 4 Stanford Law Review 79.3 5 Michigan Law Review 69.5 6 California Law Review 67.2 7 University of Pennsylvania Law 66.6 Review 8 Texas Law Review 66.2 9 Virginia Law Review 65.6 10 Minnesota Law Review 63.9 11 UCLA Law Review 63.4 12 The Georgetown Law Journal 62.8 13 New York University Law 62.7 Review 14 Cornell Law Review 59.8 15 Northwestern University Law 59.7 Review 16 Fordham Law Review 59.5 17 Notre Dame Law Review 56.1 18 Vanderbilt Law Review 51.6 18 William and Mary Law Review 51.6 20 The University of Chicago Law 48.9 Review 21 Iowa Law Review 48.4 22 Boston University Law Review 47.2 23 Duke Law Journal 46.3 24 North Carolina Law Review 41 25 Emory Law Journal 40.7 26 Southern California Law 40.2 Review 27 Cardozo Law Review 39.6 28 Boston College Law Review 38.1 28 The George Washington Law 38.1 Review 30 UC Davis Law Review 36.9 31 Hastings Law Journal
    [Show full text]
  • Are Public Sector Workers Paid More Than Their Alternative Wage? Evidence from Longitudinal Data and Job Queues
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: When Public Sector Workers Unionize Volume Author/Editor: Richard B. Freeman and Casey Ichniowski, eds. Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-26166-2 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/free88-1 Publication Date: 1988 Chapter Title: Are Public Sector Workers Paid More Than Their Alternative Wage? Evidence from Longitudinal Data and Job Queues Chapter Author: Alan B. Krueger Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7910 Chapter pages in book: (p. 217 - 242) 8 Are Public Sector Workers Paid More Than Their Alternative Wage? Evidence from Longitudinal Data and Job Queues Alan B. Krueger Several academic researchers have addressed the issue of whether federal government workers are paid more than comparable private sector workers. In general, these studies use cross-sectional data to estimate the differential in wages between federal and private sector workers, controlling for observed worker characteristics such as age and education. (Examples are Smith 1976, 1977 and Quinn 1979.) This literature typically finds that wages are 10-20 percent greater for federal workers than private sector workers, all else constant. In conflict with the findings of academic studies, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s of- ficial wage comparability survey consistently finds that federal workers are paid less than private sector workers who perform similar jobs.’ Moreover, the government’s findings have been confirmed by an in- dependent study by Hay Associates (1984). Additional research is needed to resolve this conflict. When the focus turns to state and local governments, insignificant differences in pay are generally found between state and local govern- ment employees and private sector employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Rape: a Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements
    Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements Prepared for: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services Prepared by: Asaph Glosser Karen Gardiner Mike Fishman The Lewin Group December 15, 2004 Acknowledgements Work on this project was funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to The Lewin Group. This report benefited greatly from the oversight and input of Jerry Silverman, the ASPE Project Officer. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the assistance of a number of reviewers. Sarah Brown, Eva Klain, and Brenda Rhodes Miller provided us with valuable guidance and insights into legal issues and the policy implications of the laws and reporting requirements. Their comments improved both the content and the organization of the paper. At The Lewin Group, Shauna Brodsky reviewed drafts and provided helpful comments. The Authors Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................ES-1 A. Background...........................................................................................................................ES-1 1. Criminal Laws............................................................................................................... ES-1 2. Reporting Requirements.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 10 (2013) | ISSN 1932-1821 (Print) 1932-1996 (Online) DOI 10.5195/Taxreview.2013.18 |
    Volume 10 (2013) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2013.18 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 10 Spring 2013 Issue 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES WHEN ARE DAMAGES TAX FREE?: THE ELUSIVE MEANING OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” Ronald H. Jensen ................................................................... 87 ENTRY-LEVEL ENTREPRENEURS AND THE CHOICE-OF-ENTITY CHALLENGE Emily Ann Satterthwaite ...................................................... 139 NOTE AVOIDING DELEGATION DOCTRINE CHALLENGES TO INTERNET SALES TAX LEGISLATION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE MAIN STREET FAIRNESS ACT Michael J. Bouey ................................................................. 203 Pitt Tax Review | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2013.18 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu i PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 10 Spring 2013 Issue 2 2012 – 2013 EDITORIAL BOARD Senior Editors Michael J. Bouey Editor-in-Chief James Flannery Mirit Eyal-Cohen Anthony C. Infanti Faculty Editor Chief Faculty Editor Faculty Editor Sarah Martin John W. Kettering Executive Editor Production Editor Saheli Chakrabarty Ryan P. Hinsey Jeremiah Vandermark Notes Editor Articles Editors Jennifer Saint-Preux Sarah J. Ratzkin Research Editor Bluebook Editor Managing Editors Ashley Hileman Brian Fraile Sam Pangas Max Slater Kelly Smith Associate Editors Becky Armady Sung Un Kim Sean M. O’Rourke Patrick Carew Frank Kimmel Emily Osgood Jamie L. Davis Sarah Knerr Ryan Perlson Katelyn M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maturation of Federal Employees As an Interest Group
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: The Federal Civil Service System and The Problem of Bureaucracy Volume Author/Editor: Ronald N. Johnson and Gary D. Libecap Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-40170-7 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/john94-1 Publication Date: January 1994 Chapter Title: The Maturation of Federal Employees as an Interest Group Chapter Author: Ronald N. Johnson, Gary D. Libecap Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8636 Chapter pages in book: (p. 96 - 125) 5 The Maturation of Federal Employees as an Interest Group 5.1 Introduction The legislative histories of major laws affecting the civil service system show that an active role in shaping them was played by early federal employee unions. The evidence offered in this chapter reveals that federal employee groups were able to utilize these earlier institutional changes to expand their influence and direct the subsequent course of the civil service system. Indeed, as an interest group, federal workers have done rather well. Even though fed- eral workers do not have the right to strike, most of the evidence indicates that the ‘compensation of federal employees generally exceeds the amount that they would earn either in the private sector or elsewhere in the public sector. Federal unions have achieved this favorable outcome, at least in part, be- cause they have been granted direct input into the design of the very institutions that determine their members’ compensation. By law, federal wages must be comparable with those in the private sector.
    [Show full text]
  • SAMPLE Content Directory
    SAMPLE Nearly 1,300 Journals Content Directory Participating! http://heinonline.org Please Note: This is a list of ALL content available in our two main library modules through the HeinOnline interface. Due to the various subscription packages available, access to this content may vary. TABLE OF CONTENTS: Law Journal Library ..................................................................................................................................... pp. 1-25 Legal Classics Library................................................................................................................................. pp. 26-56 LAW JOURNAL LIBRARY VOLUMES YEARS Acta Juridica 1958-2003 1958-2003 Acta Universitatis Lucian Blaga 2001-2005 2001-2005 Adelaide Law Review 1-24 1960-2003 Administrative Law Journal of the American University† 1-10 1987-1996 Administrative Law Review (ABA) 1-57 1949-2005 Advocate: A Weekly Law Journal† 1-2 1888-1890 African Human Rights Law Journal 1-3 2001-2003 African Journal of Legal Studies 1 2004-2005 Air Force Law Review 1-58 1959-2006 Air Law Review † 1-12 1930-1941 Akron Law Review 1-38 1967-2005 Akron Tax Journal 1-21 1983-2006 Alabama Law Journal (Birmingham) † 1-5 1925-1930 Alabama Law Journal (Montgomery) † 1-4 1882-1885 Alabama Law Review *JUST UPDATED* 1-57 1948-2006 Alaska Law Review 1-22 1984-2005 Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 1-10 1995-2005 Albany Law Journal † 1-70 1870-1909 Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 1-15 1991-2005 Albany Law Review 1-69 1931-2006 Alberta Law Quarterly
    [Show full text]
  • GGD-85-37 Options for Conducting a Pay Equity Study of Federal Pay
    J&c- P REPORT BY THE Comptroller General OF THE UNITEDSTATES Options For Conducting A Pay Equity Study Of Federal Pay And Classification Systems This report discusses ways to determine why female federal employees earn less than male federal employees. Two general approaches are discussed--economic analysis and job content. Economic analysis attempts to measure and explain existing wage differentials between men and women using characteristics of individuals, occupations, and the workplace. Such an analy- sis could indicate the extent to which factors such as education, work experience, and occupa- tion account for wage differences by sex in the federal government. The job content approach focuses on the characteristics of jobs in seeking to identify wage disparities. A job content study could provide a measure of the value of various federal jobs to the government and a correspond- ing comparison of the present grades or salaries for those jobs. GAO believes that each approach has merit. Accordingly, in GAO’s view, the most compre- hensive and effective means through which to conduct a pay equity study at the federal level would be to include both approaches. GAO/GGD-88-37 0313Ll MARCH 1,198s COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON D.C. 20540 ~-217675 To Selected Chairpersons and Members of Congress: As you requested, this report discusses various options for conducting a pay equity study of federal pay and job classif>ca- tion systems. Our work to date has confirmed the complexity of the pay equity issue and the need for continued, careful planning if a federal study is to be done.
    [Show full text]
  • Print This Article
    Volume 17 (2020) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2020.114 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu PRIVATE OPERATING FOUNDATION REFORM AND J. PAUL GETTY Khrista McCarden This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PRIVATE OPERATING FOUNDATION REFORM AND J. PAUL GETTY Khrista McCarden* INTRODUCTION The Tax Reform Act of 1969 (“the 1969 Act”) established an arcane form of charitable organization called the private operating foundation.1 Essentially, a private operating foundation is a charitable organization exempt from income tax that in a hierarchical sense is situated between what is known as a public charity and a traditional private foundation. In other words, it is not publicly supported, as are public charities, and thus it is a private foundation; however, it does more than just make grants.2 This form has been subject to countless abuses3 and reform is necessary, especially in the context of private operating foundations that operate art museums (“private art museums”). A recent New York Times article reported that many perceive the ability of wealthy art donors to maintain control over artwork while also receiving tax benefits for varying degrees of public benefit as unfair.4 It is widely accepted that one of the fundamental policies underlying our federal tax system is the notion of fairness.5 Private art museums raise * Hoffman F.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of State Speed Laws
    DOT HS 810 826 August 2007 Summary of State Speed Laws Tenth Edition Current as of January 1, 2007 This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................iii Missouri ......................................................138 Alabama..........................................................1 Montana ......................................................143 Alaska.............................................................5 Nebraska .....................................................150 Arizona ...........................................................9 Nevada ........................................................157 Arkansas .......................................................15 New
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Vehicle Occupant Protection Laws Ninth Edition Current As of June 1, 2010 DISCLAIMER
    DOT HS 811 458 April 2011 Summary of Vehicle Occupant Protection Laws Ninth Edition Current as of June 1, 2010 DISCLAIMER This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade names, manufacturers’names, or specific products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………. iii OVERVIEW NARRATIVE OF KEY PROVISIONS………………………………………….. v SUMMARY CHART OF KEY PROVISIONS…………………………………………………. vi ALABAMA……………………………………………………………………………………… 1 ALASKA………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 ARIZONA……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 ARKANSAS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 CALIFORNIA…………………………………………………………………………………… 14 COLORADO…………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 CONNECTICUT………………………………………………………………………………… 22 DELAWARE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 26 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA…………………………………………………………………….. 29 FLORIDA………………………………………………………………………………………… 33 GEORGIA……………………………………………………………………………………….. 37 HAWAI’I…………………………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Public Sector Employment - December 1994
    TRENDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR PAY IN OECD COUNTRIES 1997 Edition ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: - to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; - to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and - to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and the Republic of Korea (12th December 1996). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). PubliC en frangais sous le titre : EVOLUTION DES REMUNERATIONS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC DANS LES PAYS DE L’OCDE Edition 1997 0 OECD 1997 Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre fraqais d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, Tel.
    [Show full text]