Local Government -- 1962 Tennessee Survey

Local government cases usually make dry reading, but this year one unusual dispute gives some insight into the customs and court-house politics in one of Tennessee\u27s smaller counties. The county judge and the county register of deeds (a lady) disagreed about office space in the courthouse. The county judge wanted to swap offices with the lady, but she refused. So after talking to the sheriff about it, the judge knocked holes in the lady\u27s wall; whereupon she got an injunction. Judge Shriver, speaking for the court of appeals, said the sheriff could not give the judge permission to knock the lady\u27s wall down. Judge Shriver found a section of the Tennessee Code vesting in the quarterly county court supervision of the courthouse and observed, in passing, that learned counsel failed to take note of this code section which solves the whole problem for everyone concerned

Federal Appellate Court Decision in Sequoyah v. TVA, No. 79-1633

Federal Appellate Court Decision in the Case of Ammoneta Sequoyah, Richard Crowe, Gilliam Jackson, Individually and representing other Cherokee Indians similarly situated; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Ketooah Band of Cherokee Indians, Appellants, v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Appellee. The opinion upholds the lower court\u27s decision to issue summary judgment in favor of the defendants, allowing construction to go forward on the Tellico Dam project. The opinion was written by Pierce Lively, with a dissent by Gilbert S. Merrit Jr. This decision was published in West\u27s Federal Reporter at 620 F.2d 1159 (1980)

Studies of Tiros and Nimbus radiometric observations Final report

Data analyses of Tiros and Nimbus radiometric observation

Meteorological interpretation of Nimbus High Resolution Infrared /HRIR/ data

Nimbus satellite high resolution infrared photographic data analysi

Public Sector Bargaining in a Democracy - An Assessment of the Ohio Public Employee Collective Bargaining Law

The purpose of this Article is to examine the Ohio Act in terms of its accommodation of the major theoretical considerations in favor of, or opposed to, public sector collective bargaining. In other words, is the Ohio Act structured so as to maximally achieve the benefits asserted to be available from collective bargaining and to avoid the costs asserted to arise from it? In order to accomplish this task, this Article will briefly summarize major provisions of the Act. An overview of some of the major arguments for and against public sector unionization will then be provided. Once this background has been established, the Act will be analyzed, focusing upon its effect upon individual employees, labor organizations, and the democratic process. The conclusions reached are that the Act is not structured so as to protect public employees to the degree that private sector employees are protected, that the Act will assist labor organizations, and that the Act strikingly fails to provide a structure that can minimize damage to the processes of democracy