archive-edu.com » EDU » C » CORNELL.EDU

Total: 1513

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Damages | LII / Legal Information Institute
    punish a wrongdoer There are other modifying terms placed in front of the word damages like liquidated damages contractually established damages and nominal damages where the court awards a nominal amount such as one dollar For certain types of injuries statutes provide that successful parties should receive some multiple of their actual damages e g treble damages There are general principles governing what types of damages are awarded It is generally recognized for instance that punitive damages are not available for breaches of contract except when it is proven that the breach was wanton willful and deliberate Definition from Nolo s Plain English Law Dictionary 1 In a lawsuit the harm caused to a party who is injured 2 In a lawsuit the money awarded to one party based on injury or loss caused by the other For either definition there are many different types or categories of damages See also compensatory damages actual damages special damages general damages exemplary damages punitive damages statutory damages nominal damages Definition provided by Nolo s Plain English Law Dictionary August 19 2010 5 14 pm menu of sources Federal Material U S Constitution and Federal Statutes U S Code 15 U S C 15 15e Restraint of Trade Suits 26 U S C Damages and Income Taxation 28 U S C Recovery of Damages Against the U S and Foreign States 45 U S C Chapter 2 Railway Carriers CRS Annotated Constitution Federal Court Rules and Judicial Decisions Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9 g Special Damages Rule 54 c Judgment U S Supreme Court Recent Decisions Dealing with Damages liibulletin Oral Argument Previews U S Circuit Courts of Appeals Recent Decisions Dealing with Damages State Material Uniform Laws 7 U C C Article 2 Part 7 Remedies Model Punitive Damages Act

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/damages (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Linking to legal resources | LII / Legal Information Institute
    cite of the case that you wish to link to A link to Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty 272 U S 365 would look like this a href http www law cornell edu wex cgi wexlink wexns USR amp wexname 272 365 class extiw USR 272 365 a As with all other Wex links you can substitute your own link text using a so called piped link of the form Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty which creates a link like this Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty A link constructed in this way will take you to the case as it is found in the LII s Supreme Court Collection We have all cases since 1991 and 650 or more important cases from the Court s history If the case is not available from the LII the viewer will be presented with a list of locations where the case may be viewed We ask that you NOT put the texts of entire Supreme Court opinions into Wex If there is need for a case please contact the editors Uniform Commercial Code You need to know the Article and section that you wish to link to A link to section 4 110 Electronic Presentment would look like this 4 110 As with all other Wex links you can substitute your own link text using a so called piped link of the form Electronic Presentment which creates a link like this Electronic Presentment Federal Rules of Civil Procedure You need to know the rule number that you wish to link to A link to Rule 41 Dismissal of Actions would look like this 41 As with all other Wex links you can substitute your own link text using a so called piped link of the form Dismissal of actions which

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Linking_to_legal_resources (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Tucker Act | LII / Legal Information Institute
    extended the original Court of Claims jurisdiction to include claims for liquidated or unliquidated damages arising from the Constitution including takings claims under the Fifth Amendment a federal statute or regulation and claims in cases not arising in tort The relevant text of the Act is codified in 28 U S C 1346 a and 1491 Specifically the Tucker Act permits three kinds of claims against the government 1 contractual claims 2 noncontractual claims where the plaintiff seeks the return of money paid to the government and 3 noncontractual claims where the plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to payment by the government Today jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims is vested in the United States Court of Federal Claims The United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims in excess of 10 000 while another statutory grant of jurisdiction the so called Little Tucker Act allows the court to entertain similar suits against the United States for claims of less than 10 000 concurrently with the federal district courts Prior to the passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 however this jurisdiction was vested in the original U S Court of Claims United

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tucker_act (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Due process | LII / Legal Information Institute
    The Due Process Clause doesn t apply to a private school taking discipline against one of its students although that school will probably want to follow similar principles Whether state action against an individual was a deprivation of life liberty or property was initially resolved by a distinction between rights and privileges Process was due if rights were involved but the state could act as it pleased in relation to privileges But as modern society developed it became harder to tell the two apart Was a driver s license a right or a privilege How about a government job Enrolment on welfare An initial reaction to the increasing dependence of citizens on their government was to look at the seriousness of the impact of government action on an individual without asking as such about the nature of the relationship affected Process was due before the government could take an action that affected a citizen in a grave way In the early 1970 s however this gave way to an analysis that accepted as a threshold question whether life liberty or property was directly affected by state action but that required these concepts to be very broadly interpreted Two Supreme Court cases involved teachers at state colleges whose contracts of employment had not been renewed as they expected because of some political positions they had taken Were they entitled to a hearing before they could be treated in this way Previously a state job was a privilege and the answer to this question was an emphatic No Now the Court decided that whether either of the two teachers had property would depend in each instance on whether persons in their position under state law held some form of tenure One teacher had just been on a short term contract because he served at will without any state law claim or expectation to continuation he had no entitlement once his contract expired The other teacher worked under a longer term arrangement that school officials seemed to have encouraged him to regard as a continuing one This could create an entitlement the Court said the expectation need not be based on a statute and an established custom of treating instructors who had taught for X years as having tenure could be shown While thus some law based relationship or expectation of continuation had to be shown before a federal court would say that process was due constitutional property was no longer just what the common law called property it now included any legal relationship with the state that state law regarded as in some sense an entitlement of the citizen Licenses government jobs protected by civil service or places on the welfare rolls were all defined by state laws as relations the citizen was entitled to keep until there was some reason to take them away and therefore process was due before they could be taken away This restated the formal right privilege idea but did so in a way that recognized the new dependency of citizens on relations with government the new property as one scholar influentially called it The application of this threshold test for whether process is due has presented three problems The first is called the positivist trap Since whether one has an entitlement depends on the prescriptions of state law legislatures may be able to define important relationships ones on which citizens in fact come to depend in ways that preclude the conclusion that an entitlement is present Recent welfare reform legislation has been explicit that one its purposes is to end any idea that welfare is an entitlement although largely directed to the question how long one may remain on welfare the rhetoric seems also aimed at the new property idea We are not discussing liberty but you can see that similar problems will arise perhaps even more importantly What decisions affecting prisoners involve their liberty has been a particularly aggravating problem The courts do not want to engage in close supervision of prison issues but at the same time must recognize the plain command of the language of the clause Moreover if the provisions of a state law define not only an entitlement but also the procedures by which that relationship can be ended or altered how can a court separate the two Mustn t the citizen be prepared to accept the bitter with the sweet This issue was presented when civil servants enjoying tenure under statutes that provided for the procedures to be followed for removal challenged the constitutionality of aspects of the removal procedures The Court rejected the bitter with the sweet reasoning but not without indicating a high level of respect for legislative judgments about what procedures would be fair The second problem might be described as a problem about what is a deprivation A series of cases involving state harm to citizens led the Court to an almost inexplicable series of due process results For example an early case held that a state could not post a picture of a person naming him as an habitual drunkard without first providing a chance for a hearing the posting made it unlawful for that person to be served alcoholic beverages in a bar Yet when a city circulated the photograph of a person recently arrested but not convicted for petty theft under the heading Active Shoplifters causing enormous damage to his reputation the failure first to provide a hearing was not objectionable Another case established that school officials could not suspend a student for ten days without first giving him some kind of hearing attendance at public school was an entitlement Yet a teacher who physically punished a student so severely that it kept him out of school for several days but who did not formally exclude him from school had not deprived her student of liberty or property without due process of law Where liability was denied perhaps one could say the challenged official acts did not change the victim s legal status It was still lawful to shop or to come to school if health permitted Yet the harms seem if anything worse than in the cases where procedure was required Some have thought it important that in these cases and others state law appeared to provide a remedy after the fact the victim could sue the official for slander or for assault To find due process violations in such matters would involve the federal courts in what had traditionally been the business of state law As a dissenter in the corporal punishment case observed these considerations appear to explain the results in a technical sense Yet it seems fair to characterize the justice of the opposing results in these cases as deeply questionable Finally what about cases of potential entitlements for which a citizen is applying and has not qualified Does a statute saying that every citizen with characteristics A B and C shall receive stated benefits or earn a driver s license create an entitlement so that due process constrains the application procedures the state can choose Once qualified the citizen could not be deprived of her entitlement without due process Yet the Supreme Court has not said directly whether the same judgment applies at the application stage and some Justices apparently believe that it does not On the one hand it can be said that the law is always more solicitous of established relationships than expectations However the entitlement analysis suffers some embarrassment in this argument The claim of the citizen to state legality seems the same whether he has wrongly been denied access to an entitlement he has not yet enjoyed or has been terminated in one previously recognized When process is due In its early decisions like the rotten chicken case the Supreme Court seemed repeatedly to indicate that where only property rights were at stake and particularly if there was some demonstrable urgency for public action necessary hearings could be postponed to follow provisional even irreversible government action This presumption changed in 1970 with the decision in Goldberg v Kelly a case arising out of a state administered welfare program New York was seeking to terminate the enrolment of Kelly and others in its welfare program It conceded that a federal statute required it to provide a full hearing before a hearing officer before finally terminating their enrolment and even anticipating the new property entitlement approach that the Due Process Clause required such a hearing At issue in the case was only its effort to suspend payments pending that full and formal hearing a question in effect of timing For this limited purpose New York employed a more informal process It was willing to give persons like Mrs Kelly opportunities to confer with responsible social workers and to submit written views before suspension but it gave no hearing in the judicial sense before the suspension was put into effect The tremendous need facing a person dependent on welfare even over a few weeks or months persuaded the Goldberg Court that a suspension is in itself a deprivation one that requires a hearing before it could be put into effect Except for the situations mentioned earlier where the courts have thought that a tort action could be an adequate remedy against officials who cause harm without affecting legal status Goldberg in effect created a pre sump tion that hearings must come first The hearing first aspect of its holding spread rapidly through a variety of civil judicial remedies for example limiting traditional summary procedures lenders had used to repossess cars bought on credit when payments ceased This aspect seems reasonably stable in today s law It is interesting that these cases have never made what might seem an obvious comparison In criminal law the state often takes very damaging actions against people pending trial with only limited procedural safeguards Arrest and search require at most that police satisfy a judicial officer a magistrate that they have reasonable grounds to act the person they are going to act against has no right to be present at the time Detention pending trial requires no more than a showing of probable cause and the person who is going to be detained has no right to present witnesses or ask questions of the persons who present evidence for the state The result may be time in jail disrupted families terrible damage to reputation the loss of a job The inquiry New York made about Mrs Kelley seems easily comparable to these criminal law inquiries but that comparison was never made What procedures are due Probably the hardest of the analytic questions arising under the procedural aspect of due process is this one just what procedures are constitutionally due This is a question that has to be answered for criminal trials where the Bill of Rights provides many explicit answers for civil trials where the long history of English practice provides some landmarks and for administrative proceedings which did not appear on the legal landscape until a century or so after the Due Process Clause was first adopted Because there are the fewest landmarks the administrative cases present the hardest issues and these are the ones we will discuss As we have seen the earliest expressions were very indefinite The state had to provide some kind of a hearing giving the citizen the right to support his allegations by arguments however brief and if need be by proof however informal The battle over incorporation however made this seem a very subjective inquiry and the reaction to the excesses of substantive due process made that subjectivity suspect Judicially defining the liberties indispensable to the dignity and happiness of a free man case by case seemed a hazardous enterprise At the same time developments in the 1950 s underscored the importance of fair administrative procedures This was the time of McCarthy ism and the red baiting that went with it Rumors generated by faceless informers were widely used to deprive government employees of their jobs because of doubts raised about their loyalty and security The resulting inquiries often left the employees with their honor challenged but no realistic possibility of response They emphasized the value in an administrative context of procedural protections long associated with Anglo American criminal trials the right to have the assistance of counsel the right to know one s accuser and the evidence against one the right to confront and cross examine that person the right to have decision based solely upon a record generated in open proceedings as well as the right to present argument and evidence on one s own behalf Yet for each case that seemed to demand a detailed procedural prescription another plainly required flexibility A legislative investigation of alleged communistic activities could not be undertaken without respecting witness claims to procedural safeguards but the Court would not burden a legislative investigation into civil rights issues with rigid procedural requirements although the investigation s conclusions might harm the reputation of witnesses before it in some parts of the country An aeronautic engineer could not be threatened with loss of access to military secrets on which his profession depended on the basis of anonymous accusations about his loyalty without the opportunity to confront the information and his accuser but a cook on a military installation threatened with loss of access to the installation and hence that particular job apparently on the basis of undisclosed concerns about her security status had in all the circumstances no similar claim The Court during this period seemed to agree on little save the proposition that what the due process clause required could only be determined on the basis of all the circumstances of a given case a view not far distant from the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty When the Goldberg Court came to answer the what question it held that the state must provide a hearing before an impartial judicial officer the right to an attorney s help the right to present evidence and argument orally the chance to examine all materials that would be relied on or to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses or a decision limited to the record thus made and explained in an opinion The Court s basis for this elaborate holding has never been clear although it seems to have some roots in the incorporation debates Various prior cases were cited for the different ingredients provided for in the naval engineer s case but not the cook s for example on the question of cross examina tion but without attention to the possibility the requirements of due process would vary from setting to setting The opinion was written as if all would agree that the procedures it was discussing were generally required whenever procedure was due Yet overall the collection of procedures it required was atypically demanding even of final government administrative determinations on issues of great importance A survey of forty federal programs made a few years after Goldberg for example found only one other program also welfare oriented in which all the Goldberg rights were respected For the substantial majority fewer than half were provided only notice the assurance of some degree of impartiality and an explanation of the basis of decision were observed with any degree of universality Perhaps for this reason an outpouring of cases after Goldberg s due process explosion quickly persuaded the Supreme Court to a more discriminating approach Process was due to the student suspended for ten days as to the doctor deprived of his license to practice medicine or the person accused of being a security risk yet the difference in seriousness of the outcomes of the charges and of the institutions involved made it clear there could be no list of procedures that were always due What the Constitution required would inevitably be dependent on the situation What process is due is a question to which there cannot be a single answer A successor case to Goldberg Mathews v Eldridge tried instead to define a method by which due process questions could be successfully presented by lawyers and answered by courts The approach it defined has remained the Court s preferred method for resolving questions over what process is due although not one that the Court always refers to sometimes it simply invokes tradition or some other basis for understanding Mathews arose in a context much like Goldberg Mr Eldridge had been receiving disability benefits under a federally supported scheme Responsible officials came to believe on the basis of information he had provided and physicians reports that he was no longer disabled They then notified him that they intended to terminate his benefits Only written procedures were available before the termination was made provisionally effective Eldridge was entitled to a full oral hearing at a later date and would have received full benefits for the interim period if he prevailed His argument like Kelly s in Goldberg v Kelly was that even suspending payments to him pending the full hearing was a deprivation of a property interest that could not be effected without the use of the procedures specified in Goldberg Where Goldberg had listed procedures that had to be followed Mathews attempted to define how judges should ask about constitutionally required procedures The Court said three factors had to be analyzed First the private interest that will be affected by the official action second the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value if any of additional or substitute procedural safeguards and finally the Government s interest including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail Using these factors the Court first found the private interest here less significant than in Goldberg A person who is arguably disabled but provisionally denied disability benefits it said is more likely to be able to find other potential sources of temporary income than a person who

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • USC : Title 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute
    106 Mar 2 1895 ch 177 1 28 Stat 769 27 Mar 6 1920 ch 94 1 41 Stat 520 107 28 R S 12 108 29 R S 13 109 Mar 22 1944 ch 123 58 Stat 118 29a R S 5599 110 29b Mar 3 1933 ch 202 3 47 Stat 1431 111 30 Jan 12 1895 ch 23 73 28 Stat 615 112 June 20 1936 ch 630 9 49 Stat 1551 June 16 1938 ch 477 1 52 Stat 760 30a R S 908 113 31 R S 6 114 51a Mar 2 1929 ch 586 1 45 Stat 1540 201 52 May 29 1928 ch 910 2 45 Stat 1007 202 Mar 2 1929 ch 586 2 45 Stat 1541 53 May 29 1928 ch 910 3 45 Stat 1007 203 54 May 29 1928 ch 910 4 45 Stat 1007 204 Mar 2 1929 ch 586 3 45 Stat 1541 54a Mar 2 1929 ch 586 4 45 Stat 1542 205 Mar 4 1933 ch 282 1 47 Stat 1603 June 13 1934 ch 483 1 2 48 Stat 948 54b Mar 2 1929 ch 586 5 45 Stat 1542 206 Mar 4 1933 ch 282 1 47 Stat 1603 June 13 1934 ch 483 1 2 48 Stat 948 54c Mar 2 1929 ch 586 6 45 Stat 1542 207 54d Mar 2 1929 ch 586 7 45 Stat 1542 208 55 May 29 1928 ch 910 5 45 Stat 1007 209 56 May 29 1928 ch 910 6 45 Stat 1007 210 57 May 29 1928 ch 910 7 45 Stat 1008 211 58 May 29 1928 ch 910 8 45 Stat 1008 212 59 May 29 1928 ch 910 10 45 Stat 1008 213 60 Mar 3 1933 ch 202 2 47 Stat 1431 Rep The table below lists the classification updates since Jan 3 2012 for the contained sections If there are multiple sections they are presented in section number order original document order The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday October 23 2012 An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables If you suspect that our system may be missing something please double check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel How To Use Multiple entries for a section are listed most recent first within the section The Session Year indicates which session of Congress was responsible for the changes classified The Congress number forms the first part of the Public Law number each Congress has two sessions Abbreviations used in the Description of Change column An empty field implies a standard amendment new means a new section or new note or all new text of an existing section or note nt means note nt tbl means note table prec means preceding fr means a transfer from another section to means a transfer to another section omitted means the section is omitted repealed means the section

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1 (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • USC : Title 2 - THE CONGRESS | LII / Legal Information Institute
    17A CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND FISCAL OPERATIONS 621 665 to 665e CHAPTER 17B IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL 681 691 to 692 CHAPTER 18 LEGISLATIVE PERSONNEL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 701 to 709 CHAPTER 19 CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM 801 811 to 817c CHAPTER 19A JOHN HEINZ COMPETITIVE EXCELLENCE AWARD 831 CHAPTER 20 EMERGENCY POWERS TO ELIMINATE BUDGET DEFICITS 900 922 CHAPTER 20A STATUTORY PAY AS YOU GO 931 939 CHAPTER 21 CIVIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD PROGRAM IN HONOR OF OFFICE OF SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1001 to 1004 CHAPTER 22 JOHN C STENNIS CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 1101 1110 CHAPTER 22A OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER 1151 CHAPTER 22B HUNGER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM 1161 CHAPTER 23 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RIGHTS 1201 1202 1223 1224 CHAPTER 24 CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 1301 1438 CHAPTER 25 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM 1501 1571 CHAPTER 26 DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES 1601 1614 CHAPTER 27 SOUND RECORDING PRESERVATION BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 1701 1743 CHAPTER 28 ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 1801 1870 CHAPTER 29 CAPITOL POLICE 1901 1981 CHAPTER 30 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CAPITOL COMPLEX 2001 2185 CHAPTER 31 CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 2201 2281 Chap Sec 1 Election of Senators and Representatives 1 2 Organization of Congress 21 3 Compensation and Allowances of Members 31 4 Officers and Employees of Senate and House of Representatives 60 5 Library of Congress 131 6 Congressional and Committee Procedure Investigations 190 7 Contested Elections Repealed 201 8 Federal Corrupt Practices Repealed 241 8A Regulation of Lobbying Repealed 261 9 Office of Legislative Counsel 271 9A Office of Law Revision Counsel 285 9B Legislative Classification Office Repealed 286 9C Office of Parliamentarian of House of Representatives 287 9D Office of Senate Legal Counsel 288 10 Classification of Employees of House of Representatives 291 10A Payroll Administration in House of Representatives 331 11 Citizens Commission on Public Service and Compensation 351 12 Contested Elections 381 13 Joint Committee on Congressional Operations Repealed 411 14 Federal Election Campaigns 431 15 Office of Technology Assessment 471 16 Congressional Mailing Standards 501 17 Congressional Budget Office 601 17A Congressional Budget and Fiscal Operations 621 17B Impoundment Control 681 18 Legislative Personnel Financial Disclosure Requirements Transferred 701 19 Congressional Award Program 801 19A John Heinz Competitive Excellence Award 831 20 Emergency Powers To Eliminate Budget Deficits 900 20A Statutory Pay as You Go 931 21 Civic Achievement Award Program in Honor of Office of Speaker of House of Representatives Repealed 1001 22 John C Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development 1101 22A Open World Leadership Center 1151 22B Hunger Fellowship Program 1161 23 Government Employee Rights Transferred or Repealed 1201 24 Congressional Accountability 1301 25 Unfunded Mandates Reform 1501 26 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities 1601 27 Sound Recording Preservation by the Library of Congress 1701 28 Architect of the Capitol 1801 29 Capitol Police 1901 30 Operation and Maintenance of Capitol Complex 2001 31 Capitol Visitor Center 2201 The table below lists the classification updates since Jan 3 2012 for the contained sections If there are multiple sections

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2 (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • USC : Title 3 - THE PRESIDENT | LII / Legal Information Institute
    1886 ch 4 1 24 Stat 1 19 22 Jan 19 1886 ch 4 2 24 Stat 1 19 23 R S 151 20 24 July 18 1947 ch 264 1 a f 61 Stat 380 381 19 July 26 1947 ch 343 311 61 Stat 509 41 R S 152 101 June 5 1934 ch 390 1 48 Stat 879 42 R S 153 102 Mar 4 1909 ch 297 1 35 Stat 859 43 June 23 1906 ch 3523 34 Stat 454 103 Aug 2 1946 ch 744 17 c 60 Stat 811 44 R S 154 104 Feb 26 1907 ch 1635 4 34 Stat 993 Mar 4 1925 ch 549 4 43 Stat 1301 Aug 2 1946 ch 753 601 a 60 Stat 850 45 Apr 22 1926 ch 171 1 44 Stat 305 105 45a Apr 3 1939 ch 36 301 53 Stat 565 106 46 June 12 1922 ch 218 42 Stat 636 107 Feb 13 1923 ch 72 42 Stat 1227 June 7 1924 ch 292 1 43 Stat 521 Mar 3 1925 ch 468 1 43 Stat 1198 1199 Apr 22 1926 ch 171 1 44 Stat 305 Feb 11 1927 ch 104 1 44 Stat 1069 May 16 1928 ch 580 1 45 Stat 573 Feb 20 1929 ch 270 1 45 Stat 1230 Apr 19 1930 ch 201 1 46 Stat 229 Feb 23 1931 ch 281 1 46 Stat 1355 June 30 1932 ch 330 1 47 Stat 452 June 16 1933 ch 101 1 48 Stat 284 Mar 28 1934 ch 102 1 48 Stat 509 Feb 2 1935 ch 3 1 49 Stat 6 Mar 19 1936 ch 156 1 49 Stat 1148 June 28 1937 ch 396 1 50 Stat 350 May 23 1938 ch 259 1 52 Stat 411 Mar 16 1939 ch 11 1 53 Stat 524 Apr 8 1940 ch 107 1 54 Stat 112 Apr 5 1941 ch 40 1 55 Stat 93 June 27 1942 ch 450 1 56 Stat 392 June 26 1943 ch 145 101 57 Stat 169 June 27 1944 ch 286 101 58 Stat 361 May 3 1945 ch 106 101 59 Stat 106 Mar 28 1946 ch 113 101 60 Stat 61 47 Mar 4 1911 ch 285 1 36 Stat 1404 108 48 June 25 1910 ch 384 9 36 Stat 773 109 49 R S 1829 110 Feb 26 1925 ch 377 1 2 43 Stat 1091 50 R S 1832 109 51 R S 1833 109 52 R S 1834 109 53 June 23 1913 ch 3 1 38 Stat 23 201 54 June 9 1941 ch 189 55 Stat 247 Elim 61 Sept 14 1922 ch 308 1 42 Stat 841 202 May 14 1930 ch 277 1 46 Stat 328 62 Sept 14 1922 ch 308 2 42 Stat 841 203 May 14 1930 ch 277 2 46 Stat 328 May 28 1935 ch 154 49 Stat 304 Apr 22 1940

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3 (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • USC : Title 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES | LII / Legal Information Institute
    repeal Table Showing Disposition of All Sections of Former Title 4 Title 4 Former Sections Revised StatutesStatutes at Large Title 4 New Sections 1 R S 1791 1792 1 2 R S 1792 2 3 Feb 8 1917 ch 34 39 Stat 900 3 4 R S 1793 41 5 R S 203 first clause 1794 42 6 R S 1795 71 7 R S 1796 72 8 R S 4798 73 9 R S 1836 101 10 R S 1837 102 11 R S 1838 103 12 June 16 1936 ch 582 10 49 Stat 1521 104 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 7 54 Stat 1060 13 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 1 54 Stat 1059 105 14 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 2 54 Stat 1060 106 15 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 3 54 Stat 1060 107 16 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 4 54 Stat 1060 108 17 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 5 54 Stat 1060 109 18 Oct 9 1940 ch 787 6 54 Stat 1060 110 The table below lists the classification updates since Jan 3 2012 for the contained sections If there are multiple sections they are presented in section number order original document order The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday October 23 2012 An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables If you suspect that our system may be missing something please double check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel How To Use Multiple entries for a section are listed most recent first within the section The Session Year indicates which session of Congress was responsible for the changes classified The Congress number forms the first part of the Public Law number each Congress has two sessions Abbreviations used in the Description of Change column An empty field implies a standard amendment new means a new section or new note or all new text of an existing section or note nt means note nt tbl means note table prec means preceding fr means a transfer from another section to means a transfer to another section omitted means the section is omitted repealed means the section is repealed nt ed change and ed change See the Editorial Classification Change Table pdf The Public Law field is linked to the development of the law in the Thomas system at the Library of Congress The Statutes at Large field is linked to the text of the law in the context of its volume of the Statutes at Large at the Government Printing Office Please note that it takes a while for these pages to get posted so for very recent legislation you need to look at the enrolled version at the Thomas site The Statutes at Large references have been rendered in the format used as page numbers in the Public Law web pages to which we link to facilitate copy paste into browser find on this web page

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4 (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •