text:
Most dentists who own their practice will consider hiring an associate at some point. Hiring an associate can allow the owner to have flexibility in her hours while growing the practice and generating additional income. However, because the owner has established the practice, developed long-term relationships with patients, and built a strong reputation in the local community, the owner should consider how to ensure that her company’s clientele and goodwill are protected from associates whose ultimate goal is to establish their own practice. Thus, dentists commonly require associates to sign a non-compete agreement as a condition of employment. A non-compete agreement prohibits the employee from practicing within a specific geographical area for a certain period of time so that the employee is restricted from competing with the employer once he leaves the practice. Further, these agreements often also prohibit the associate from soliciting the employer’s clientele directly for a certain period. It is critical that the employer have the associate sign a well-drafted agreement that protects the practice. Otherwise, the employer has little repercussions against its former employees if they decide to open a competing business nearby. Similarly, an associate should strongly consider having an attorney review his employment agreement in order to understand the terms and determine how his future employment opportunities may be limited.
Was the restraint necessary to protect the employer’s business or goodwill? When an employee joins an established business, he or she gains access to the employer’s customers and acquires valuable information as to the nature and character of the business. Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr., Inc., P.S., 170 Wash. App. 248, 255, 286 P.3d 689, 692 (2012), as amended (Aug. 8, 2012). Accordingly, equity allows the employer to require the employee to sign a non-compete agreement. Id. For example, if the dentist spent 20 years developing goodwill in the community before hiring the associate and the associate later starts working at another office in close proximity to the former employer, it poses a risk to the first office. The restraint in the non-compete would most likely be necessary to protect initial employer’s interest from the potential competition.
Does it impose a greater restraint on the employee than is reasonably necessary to secure the employer’s business or goodwill? Generally, a court determines the reasonableness of a covenant by analyzing its geographic and temporal restrictions. Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr., Inc., P.S., 170 Wash. App. 248, 256, 286 P.3d 689, 693 (2012), as amended (Aug. 8, 2012). For example, if the dentist has the associate sign an agreement with a five year temporal term with a twenty mile geographical restriction, a court could find that the non-compete imposes a greater restraint than necessary.
Does enforcing the covenant injure the public through loss of the employee’s service and skill to the extent that the court should not enforce the covenant? Public policy requires a court to consider possible harm to the public from enforcing the covenant. Such harm may include restraint of trade, limits on employment opportunities, and denial of public access to necessary services. Organon, Inc. v. Hepler, 23 Wash.App. 432, 436 n. 1, 595 P.2d 1314 (1979); McDaniel, 37 Wash.App. at 370, 680 P.2d 448. But the court must still balance these concerns against the employer’s right to protect his business. Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr., Inc., P.S., 170 Wash. App. 248, 257, 286 P.3d 689, 694 (2012), as amended (Aug. 8, 2012). For example, if the non-compete would force the patients to travel unreasonable distances to continue seeing the associate dentist or the noncompete includes a clause restricting the associate from ever practicing dentistry on his former patients, a court may find that the restrictions result in a denial of public access to necessary services.
If the employee agrees to a non-compete restriction when he or she is first hired, the employment may be sufficient consideration. However, in a recent case the Court of Appeals held that the non-compete clause in an employment agreement was unenforceable because the at-will employee agreed to a non-compete restriction sometime after being hired and the employer did not provide independent consideration at the time the noncompete was signed. McKasson v. Johnson, 178 Wash. App. 422 (2013). The court reasoned that there is no consideration when “one party is to perform some additional obligation while the other party is simply to perform that which he promised in the original contract”. Labriola v. Pollard Grp., Inc., 152 Wash. 2d 828, 834, 100 P.3d 791, 794 (2004). Examples of independent consideration for a non-compete restriction include increased wages, a promotion, a bonus, or access to protected information. Id.
Noncompete agreements may also include a liquidated damages clause in order to simplify the calculation of damages. The general rule is that such damage clauses are favored and are enforceable if they do not constitute a penalty. Courts allow such liquidated damage clauses because harm to a business from the competition of another business is difficult to ascertain. Washington courts will uphold the liquidation clause if the following two part test is satisfied: First, the amount fixed must be a reasonable forecast of just compensation for the harm that is caused by the breach, and second, the harm must be such that it is incapable or very difficult of ascertainment. Watson v. Ingram, 124 Wash. 2d 845, 850, 881 P.2d 247, 249 (1994).
If certain terms of the covenant are unreasonable, the entire covenant does not fail. The court will enforce the covenant to the extent reasonably possible to accomplish the contract’s purpose. It is also important to note that if the contract contains any mistakes or ambiguity, the contract will be construed against the employer and not the employee.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
D.C. Code § 2-532. Right of access to public records; allowable costs; time limits.
D.C. Code § 2-533. Letters of denial.
D.C. Code § 2-534. Exemptions from disclosure.
D.C. Code § 2-535. Recording of final votes.
D.C. Code § 2-536. Information which must be made public.
D.C. Code § 2-537. Administrative appeals.
D.C. Code § 2-538. Oversight of disclosure activities.
D.C. Code § 2-539. Definitions.
D.C. Code § 2-540. Short Title.

matches:
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2
§ 2


In some situations, involving the Attorney General’s Office might resolve the matter. With respect to personnel and evaluation records, the FOIA allows (but does not require) the person making the request, the custodian of the records, or the person about whom the records are maintained to seek an opinion from the Attorney General. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B) & (C). Otherwise, only the officials specified by statute (i.e., legislators, prosecuting attorneys, and heads of state agencies) may request formal opinions. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-16-706. Nevertheless, legislators often request opinions on behalf of their constituents. In addition, the Attorney General’s Office will answer questions about the FOIA. Calls should be directed to the opinions section at (501) 682-5086 or toll-free at 1-800-482-8982. In some cases, the Attorney General might be persuaded to request the same records and, upon denial of that request, bring an action under the FOIA to force disclosure. See Bryant v. Weiss, 335 Ark. 534, 983 S.W.2d 902 (1998).
Another recourse to encourage a response is to send a second letter, following up on the original request, setting forth statutory and case law support for disclosure and advising the agency that its delay is in violation of Section 6253(d) of the CPRA. Bringing public attention to the matter, through local media or public officials overseeing the agency also may prompt action.
Further, the applicant may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found for an order directing the custodian of such record to show cause why the custodian should not permit the inspection of such record. However, at least three business days prior to filing an application with the court, the applicant must file a written notice with the custodian informing the custodian that the applicant intends to file such application. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(5). If the custodian denies access to any public record, the applicant may request a written statement of the grounds for the denial. The custodian's statement must cite the law or regulation under which access is denied. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(4).
FOIA does not address any other recourse.
A citizen may petition the Attorney General to determine whether any violation of the Act has occurred or is about to occur. 29 Del. C. § 10005(e). The Attorney General has 20 days to make a written determination of whether a violation has occurred and to provide the custodian of records or the public body involved with a copy of the determination. If the Attorney General is obligated under state law to represent the agency, the Chief Deputy Attorney General must make a determination as to whether a violation occurred; if so, the Attorney General shall not represent the body in an appeal. For other agencies, if the Attorney General finds that a violation has occurred, the citizen may sue or request that the Attorney General file suit. If a request is made, the Attorney General shall notify the citizen within 15 days of the decision to file suit. The citizen has the absolute right to file suit regardless of the determination of the Attorney General and may move to intervene as a party in any suit filed by the Attorney General. 29 Del. C. § 10005(e).
As a general rule, "for fairness and practical reasons," the Attorney General has stated that it will not "investigate events that occurred more than six months before [it] received the [FOIA] complaint." Del. Op. Att'y Gen., No. 02-ib10 (Apr. 24, 2002); see also Del. Op. Att'y Gen., No. 00-ib05 (Feb. 18, 2000). Also, the Attorney General's office will not grant requests for reconsideration of an opinion unless presented with new facts or controlling legal authority. Del. Op. Att'y Gen., No. 03-ib26 (Nov. 13, 2003).
An appeal to the Mayor's office draws the attention of the agency, or the agency's FOIA officer, to a neglected FOIA request, and the matter may thereby be resolved. See, e.g., EJD Assocs. Inc. v. Office of the D.C. Controller, FOIA App. No. 95037 (Office of the Mayor, Sept. 26, 1995) (appeal of constructive denial dismissed because request was addressed).
The Office of the Attorney General has established an Open Government Mediation Program “to help citizens with questions or concerns about local government’s decisions to close meetings to the public or governmental responses to Open Records requests.” Further information, including a contact name and phone number, is available at: http://law.ga.gov/open-government-mediation-program.
To encourage a response, a savvy requester should seek the intervention of the agency’s legal officer or public relations officer, the requester’s legislator, or a political appointee in the agency who might be more responsive.
A person may bring a court action to enforce the Open Records Act. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.882(2). This may be done in lieu of an administrative appeal or after an unsuccessful administrative appeal. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.882(2).
Any person having custody or control of a public record who violates the Public Records Act is subject to criminal penalties. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:37. Arbitrary failure to respond may trigger $100 per day civil penalty against custodian. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:35(E).
The Act does not provide a means of recourse aside from an appeal in Superior Court. However, persons frustrated with lack of response may contact others within an agency, elected representatives, the ombudsman appointed by the Attorney General to file a complaint (see 5 M.R.S.A. § 200-I), or the news media. It is not unheard of for agencies and officials to revisit initial denials after consulting with legal counsel or the Office of the Attorney General.
Where the delay is beyond the time limits imposed by the PIA, the Public Access Ombudsman is available to resolve disputes relating to requests for public records, including failures to produce a public record in a timely manner. § 4-1B-04(a). An applicant may also resort to judicial review. § 4-362.
The party may resubmit its request and bring suit. A party that resubmits an FOIA request does not lose the right to file suit on the issue of the initial denial. Krug v. Ingham County Sheriff's Office, 264 Mich. App. 475, 691 N.W.2d 50 (2004).
Threaten to bring court action and recover attorney’s fees.
File an action in district court for speedy relief by a mandamus action.
File a petition with the attorney general to review the matter to determine whether the custodian has failed to comply with the public records statutes. If the attorney general orders the custodian to disclose the record, and the agency fails to do so, the individual denied may sue in court or demand in writing that the attorney general sue the agency within fifteen (15) days.
The public records official has a duty to assist the requester in making focused and effective requests. Outside of formal legal action, there is no recourse to expedite the public records request.
Often a phone call to an elected or politically appointed public official can be helpful, since these individuals usually are more responsive to the media than bureaucrats. Also a call from the newspaper's attorney to the attorney representing the public agency can be effective.
Telephone reminders and additional letters may encourage a response.
No formal routes. Informal can include escalation and reporting on delays and responses or lack thereof.
Other practical recourse beyond complaining, but short of suit, is to seek help from the official's supervisor or to seek help from an elected official. Elected officials are often more responsive than appointed officials.
See discussion above regarding ORS 192.407, enacted in 2017, concerning the ability to seek review for noncompliance with timing requirements.
To encourage a response, the requester could communicate with the custodian to understand what records exist in an effort to narrow the search.
If the governmental body fails to make a timely request for an Attorney General’s opinion, “the information requested in writing is presumed to be subject to required public disclosure and must be released unless there is a compelling reason to withhold the information.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.302. When a private third party’s interest is at stake, this acts as a compelling reason to overcome the presumption. Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-319 (1982).
1 V.S.A. § 319 provides for enforcement proceedings in the Superior Court to enjoin the public agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. The statute also provides for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs incurred by the person seeking the public records if he or she substantially prevails. Id.
Typical approaches to encourage a response would include seeking the assistance of the press or an influential person whether within or without the public body. Another, method of informally encouraging a response is through the agency's legal advisor. The state Attorney General's office represents most state agencies and some agencies have their own "in-house counsel." Counties and political subdivisions usually obtain legal advice from the county prosecuting attorney or city attorney. If a public body's refusal seems to be clearly erroneous under the statute, and it is not based upon the advice of the public body's attorney, it may be worthwhile to ask the agency to consult with its lawyer. In some cases, a requester may want to contact the lawyer directly and seek his/her intervention on your behalf. In many cases, the agency's lawyer will be the Attorney General's office that may advise an agency (and a court reviewing the agency's action) that it considered the agency's refusal unjustified. A note of caution, the Office of the Attorney General at the time of publication of this edition of this Guide (2018) has not been as supportive of citizen and media rights of access to public records under the FOIA as have past occupants of the Office.


text:
[238 U.S. 325, 327] Messrs. Eugene Mackey and D. T. Watson for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error-the Oil Company-instituted this action July 1, 1910, in the district court, Caddo parish, Louisiana, for the purpose of establishing its right to possession of part of lot No. 1, section 4, township 20, north, range 16, west, suddenly become very valuable through discovery of gas and oil. The petition alleges that the United States in 1874 sold to one Pitts lots 1 and 2, section 4, forming a projection known as 'Wilson's Point,' surrounded on three sides by waters of James bayou, a navigable stream; that he immediately entered, and, together with his successors, remained in peaceful, complete possession until April 2, 1910, when defendants in error, without knowledge of Noel, then owner, wrongfully entered upon part of lot No. 1, built a wire fence and placed a keeper thereon; that April 15, 1910, by notarial act duly recorded, the Oil Company purchased both lots from Noel and became subrogated to his rights; and when it came to subject the whole property to actual possession a portion was found occupied as above indicated.
A writ of sequestration, issued contemporaneously with filing of petition, was subsequently dissolved upon motion, a proper bond having been given, conditioned not to commit waste, and to make faithful restitution of fruits if so required.
'It is admitted by both parties that J. S. Noel was in possession, as owner, from the date of his purchase in 1880 [238 U.S. 325, 1884] , to the sale to the plaintiffs of the property known as the Wilson's Point place, his corporeal possession being limited on the east and north by the Bristol meander line, and said Noel never exercised any acts of corporeal possession, or was ever in occupancy of any land in section 4, east of or outside of the said meander line, or of any of the land in controversy. This is not intended to apply to any other land west of the land in controversy. That Noel's possession was vested by act of purchase and continued by occupancy in the plaintiffs.
'It is further admitted that defendants on the 2d day of April, 1910, took actual possession of, and posted and filed notices of location under the placer mining laws of the United States, of the tract of land on which they are now in possession, and concerning which this suit is brought, which tract of land is described by metes and bounds in defendants' answer.
'It is further admitted that when defendants took possession of said land, they located the western boundary line of their location, as the Bristol meander line, as properly located, and the defendant does not claim the ownership or possession of any land west of the true location of said Bristol meander line.
[238 U.S. 325, 333] the defendants have actually discovered oil and gas and are now producing oil from said property.
The Oil Company claimed traverse lines around lot No. 1 must be treated as true meanders; that being owner and in actual possession of the lot it had constructive possession of land lying beyond such lines east and north to the bayou-40 acres or more; and that this was being trespassed upon. Defendants in error maintained the traverse lines were not intended as true meanders; that the grant was limited by courses and distances specified; and lands north and east of these were left unsurveyed, with title remaining in the government.
The cause is here by writ of error and the Oil Company maintains that it was obligatory upon the supreme court to accept the government survey, plat, and patent as correct; to treat traverses about lot No. 1 as true meanders of the bayou; and to hold, in consequence, that boundaries of the grant extended to the stream and include the locus in quo. The substantial Federal question presented-the only one for our determination-is whether, properly construed, the original patent conveyed to Pitts land lying between platted traverse lines and waters of the navigable stream. Waters- Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 97 , 53 S. L. ed. 417, 424, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220. The effect of riparian rights, if established, would depend upon the local law. Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U.S. 508, 519 , 47 S. L. ed. 1156, 1157, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 685; Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U.S. 510, 512 , 49 S. L. ed. 857, 860, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 530.
Many causes decided by this court involved construction of patents conveying public lands by reference to official surveys and plats indicating streams or other waters. St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 272, 286, 19 L. ed. 74, 78; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691, 696 , 32 S. L. ed. 566, 567, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 203; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 380 , 35 S. L. ed. 428, 432, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, 838; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406, 412 , 35 S. L. ed. 442, 444, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 819, 840; Horne v. Smith, 159 U.S. 40, 42 , 40 S. L. ed. 68, 69, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Butler, 159 U.S. 87, 92 , 40 S. L. ed. 85, 87, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 991; Ainsa v. United States, 161 U.S. 208, 229 , 40 S. L. ed. 673, 680, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544; Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U.S. 300, 306 , 44 S. L. ed. 171, 173, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47, 51 , 46 S. L. ed. 800, 802, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563; Kirwan v. Murphy, 189 U.S. 35 , 47 L. ed. 698, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 599; Hardin v. Shedd, supra; Security Land & Exploration Co. v. Burns, 193 U.S. 167 , 48 L. ed. 662, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425; Whitaker v. McBride, supra; Graham v. Gill, 223 U.S. 643, 645 , 56 S. L. ed. 586, 588, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 244 , 57 S. L. ed. 490, 497, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 107, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242; [238 U.S. 325, 339] Chapman & D. Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee Dist. 232 U.S. 186, 196 , 58 S. L. ed. 564, 567, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 297; Gauthier v. Morrison, 232 U.S. 452, 459 , 58 S. L. ed. 680, 684, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 384; Forsyth v. Smale, 7 Biss. 201, Fed. Cas. No. 4,950. A review and analysis of these cases would be tedious and unprofitable; thorough acquaintance with the varying and controlling facts is essential to a fair understanding of them. They unquestionably support the familiar rule relied on by counsel for the Oil Company that, in general, meanders are not to be treated as boundaries, and when the United States conveys a tract of land by patent referring to an official plat which shows the same bordering on a navigable river, the purchaser takes title up to the water line. But they no less certainly establish the principle that facts and circumstances may be examined, and if they affirmatively disclose an intention to limit the grant to actual traverse lines, these must be treated as definite boundaries. It does not necessarily follow from the presence of meanders that a fractional section borders a body of water, and that a patent thereto confers riparian rights.
In the instant case we find a survey of improved lands made at the express request of the occupant to whom they were subsequently patented; a grant from the United States specifying the exact number of acres conveyed; a positive declaration in field notes that land to the north lies outside the traverse lines; admission that excluded area contains not less than 40 acres of high ground, and evidence of large timber growing there; official plat delineating the surveyor's courses and specifying acreage of the several subdivisions, which cannot be said to indicate a water boundary beyond possible question. Outside the southern traverses of this plat, in space designated 'Open Lake,' lie 300 acres of fast land surveyed by Barbour in 1896. Although Noel, the Oil Company's immediate vendor, as owner, was in possession of property known as Wilson's Point place for some thirty years, and until after alleged unlawful entry by [238 U.S. 325, 340] defendants in error, his corporeal possession (as expressly stipulated) was limited east and north by the Bristol traverse lines, and he never occupied or exercised any act of corporeal possession over the above- indicated 40 acres or more without the same.
Considering all disclosures of the record we are unable to conclude the court below erred in holding original patent from the United States to Pitts conveyed no title to lands in controversy, and its judgment must be affirmed.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Wetzel-Sanders on Monday, November 16, 2015.
Laura Wetzel-Sanders pleaded guilty to bank robbery and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment because she was deemed a career offender based on two prior convictions. She did not file a direct appeal but filed two motions for relief under § 2255. The first motion claimed a deteriorating mental condition and was dismissed as untimely and outside the scope of the court’s jurisdiction. She then filed a second § 2255 motion based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court deemed the motion successive and filed without authorization, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Wetzel-Sanders then petitioned the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which the circuit denied. She filed another petition to the Tenth Circuit, which was also denied.
She then filed the present petition, joined by the government, arguing that she was sentenced based on materially incorrect information, namely that one of her prior convictions should not count toward the career offender designation because her sentence was for less than a year. The parties based their argument on the Tenth Circuit decision in United States v. Brooks, 751 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2014). The district court was not convinced that Brooks applied and denied the motion but granted a certificate of appealability.
The Tenth Circuit found it a stretch to say that the instant motion was not a second or successive motion, because the same relief was sought in Wetzel-Sanders’ previous § 2255 motions. Although in the joint motion the government “waived any procedural hurdles” to § 2255 relief, the Tenth Circuit found that jurisdiction is not waivable. In order to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, Wetzel-Sanders needed to show the existence of newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law, neither of which was present. The Tenth Circuit noted that the district court should have either dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction or transferred it to the Tenth Circuit, but should not have decided the motion. The Tenth Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s decision for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal and vacated the district court’s order.
On Thursday, March 10, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.


Chapter 4 tuition fee for recording courses, etc.
§ 1. Energy consultants within the scope of the law on the promotion of energy savings in buildings and the Executive order on energy labelling of buildings shall pay the costs associated with the Danish Energy Agency's tasks related to energy consultants ' appointment, suspension of the appointment, registration, supervision and control of energy consultants ' company, quality assurance, operation of the registry and other computer systems as well as other administration.
(2). Costs incurred by the Danish Energy Agency holds in the context of energy labelling, to be allocated to the individual energy consultants, so that each energy consultant pays a basic amount of DKK 1,000 per calendar year. In addition, be paid an amount as referred to in paragraph 4 or 5, when reported an energy labelling in accordance with the provisions of the Executive order on energy labelling of buildings.
1) Detached single-family house (detached house) (120).
2) row, chain-or semi-detached house (130).
3) Farmhouse for agricultural property (110).
5) Floor housing with a total floor area 300 m2 (140).
(4). Paid 350 DKK when energy consultant report energy labelling of buildings in categories, which are not referred to in paragraph 3.
§ 2. Certified energy labelling firms covered by the law on the promotion of energy savings in buildings and the Executive order on energy labelling of buildings shall pay the costs associated with the Danish Energy Agency's tasks related to market surveillance of the certified energy labelling companies, including the handling of complaints over energy brands, operation of the registry and other computer systems. The costs in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be charged in connection with the reporting of energy brands.
(3). Paid DKK 170, when it certified the energy labelling company reporting an energy labelling of buildings in categories, which are not referred to in paragraph 2.
§ 3. Technical experts within the scope of the law on the promotion of energy savings in buildings and notice for inspection of boiler and heating installations in buildings shall pay the costs associated with the Danish Energy Agency's tasks related to the technical experts ' approval, renewed approval, withdrawal of approval, registration, supervision and control of the technical experts, business, quality assurance, operation of the registry and other computer systems as well as other administration.
(2). When applying for the approval as technical expert paid a one-time fee of us $ 1,200. I have to pay a fee of us $ 1,200 for each review category, applied for approval to.
(3). Technical experts will pay a one-time fee of USD 650 applications for approval as a technical expert. I have to pay a fee of us $ 650 for each review category applied for re-accreditation.
§ 4. Technical experts will pay a fee of DKK 10 per tag to use for regular inspection of oil-and gas-fired boiler plants and solid fuel boilers.
(2). Technical experts will pay a fee of DKK 10 per one-time inspection, as reported.
Tuition fee for recording courses, etc.
§ 5. Personally appointed energy consultants and technical experts pays the actual costs associated with their participation in the admission courses and compulsory refresher courses, up to a maximum of DKK 3,500 per course.
(2). Certified energy labelling companies pays the actual costs associated with their energy consultant participation in induction courses, training courses, etc., however a maximum of DKK 3,500 per course.
§ 6. The fees in accordance with § § 1-5 shall be collected on behalf of the Joint Secretariat for the Danish Energy Agency overhaul and Labelling schemes (FIVE-Secretariat), see. section 52 of the Ordinance on energy labelling of buildings and section 35 of the Ordinance on inspection of boiler and heating systems in buildings.
§ 7. Appointment fee for energy consultants, see. section 1, paragraph 2, shall be collected by the Secretariat with the applicant or FIVE energy consultant in connection with the receipt of the application for the appointment. At the refusal of the application for the appointment, shall be repaid by the application fee is not paid.
(2). The basic amount for energy consultants, see. § 1 (3) shall be collected by the Secretariat with energy consultant-FIVE or the registered energy consulting company no later than 28 February 2006. February each year, with effect for the previous calendar year. The basic amount shall be charged in the next calendar year following the receipt of the appointment.
(3). Fee for the reported energy labels, see. section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4, and article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, shall be charged monthly by FIVE-secretariat of the registered konsulentfirmaer and certified energy labelling of energy companies.
§ 8. Approval fee for technical experts and fee for approval of technical experts, see. section 3 (2) and (3) shall be collected by the Secretariat with the applicant or the FIVE technical expert in connection with the receipt of the application for approval or re-approval. By the refusal of the application for approval or re-approval shall be repaid by the application fee is not paid.
(2). Fee for tags, see. § 4 shall be collected by the FIVE-Secretariat for the purposes of removal of tags.
§ 9. Fee for the recording courses, refresher courses and introductory courses, see. section 5, shall be paid by the applicant in connection with the receipt of registration for that particular course and charged to the applicant, the registered energy consulting company or certified energy labelling company.
§ 10. Amounts in accordance with §§ 7-9 must be paid no later than 30 days after the rules governing time sent. Fee for courses must be paid no later than prior to final appointment and diploma shall be forwarded to the energy consultant.
§ 11. The fees are regulated under State Budget guidance, if fee revenue does not correspond to the Danish Energy Agency's long-term average costs divided into the individual overhaul and labelling schemes.
1 Under 100 m2): a maximum of DKK 5,120 Inc. VAT.
2) 100-199 m2: a maximum of DKK 5,632 Inc. VAT.
3) 200-299 m2: a maximum of DKK 6,144 Inc. VAT.
(2). Referred to in paragraph 1, the fees are calculated on the basis of the total heated etegeareal for building subject to marking, calculated in accordance with the Handbook for energy consultants.
(3). If carried out joint energy labelling of more buildings for energy labelling applies the maximum fees referred to in paragraph 1, when the buildings taken together does not exceed 299 m2.
1) DKK 307 incl. sales tax if the property is listed by 1. January 1980.
2) DKK 1024 inclusive. VAT, provided that there is an energy labelling of the building, which has been prepared in accordance with those from the 1. September 2006 rules in force.
3) us $ 205 Inc. sales tax, if the energy consultant or certified energy labelling company receives målfaste architectural drawings, which contains information about the rørlængder and dimensions, as well as for insulation thicknesses of hidden constructions.
§ 14. sections 12 and 13 shall not apply to energy labelling, which is carried out by internal energy consultants within the scope of the law on the promotion of energy savings in buildings.
1) DKK 499 incl. VAT for a regular inspection of oil fired boiler plants and solid fuel boiler installations under 100 kW.
2) us $ 997 Inc. VAT for a one-time inspection of heating systems.
3) us $ 227 Inc. VAT for a boiler cleaning on a oil boiler under 100 kW.
1) us $ 707 Inc. VAT for a regular inspection of oil fired boiler plants and solid fuel plants under 100 kW.
2) us $ 1204 Inc. VAT for a one-time inspection of heating systems.
3) DKK 432 Inc. VAT for a boiler cleaning on a oil boiler under 100 kW.
§ 16. Fees for Chapter 6 and 7 are inclusive of all costs, including fees for Chapter 1 and 3 as well as run-time costs.
§ 17. The size of the fees after chapter 6 and 7 are set per 1. January 2008 and indexed by the Danish Energy Agency with effect from 1 January. January each year, according to Statistics Denmark's net price indices. The regulation is based on the annual percentage change in the net price index calculated from the index in the month of October. The Danish Energy Agency publishes the amount of the maximum indexed fees at Danish Energy Agency's website.
§ 18. Complain about the hearing and the technical expert energy fixing the fee under this Ordinance may be brought before the Danish Energy Agency.
§ 19. Decisions taken by the DEA pursuant to this order cannot be appealed to the Energy complaints or to other administrative authority.
§ 20. The notice shall enter into force on the 15. June 2008.
(2). At the same time repealed Executive Order No. 351 of 17. April 2007 on the fees and fees for services in accordance with the law on the promotion of energy savings in buildings.


text:
Positron emission tomography – a useful imaging technique for otolaryngology, head and neck surgery?
J. P. Davis, M. N. Maisey, Elfy B. Chevretton,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 125-127.
Neil Weir,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, p 427.
David Wright,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1009-1010.
O. H. Shaheen, L. F. W. Salmon,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1122-1123.
Neil Weir,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, p 428.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1124-1125.
H. Rowley,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 607-612.
Glenice Gould,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 22, pp 1-9.
Tracy J. Bussoli, Karen P. Steel,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 523-530.
Nicola K. Green, Iain A. McNeish,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 913-920.
Michael J. Dixon,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 705-709.
Vijay Pothula, David Alderson,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 331-334.
R. M. Irving,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1011-1018.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 22, pp 10-25.
M. W. Saunders, M. A. Birchall,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 822-826.
How long should ears be bandaged after otoplasty?
J. Bartley,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 531-532.
Angela Broomfield, David Bourn,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 230-234.
Kim Hampson, David Bourn,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 128-131.
Michael Kuo,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, p 3.
A. Campos, A. Arias, L. Betancor, C. Rodríguez, A. M. Hernández, D. López Aguado, A. Sierra,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 613-616.
Andrew P. Read,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 4-10.
Tomohiko Takasaki, Masahiko Higashikawa, Soichi Motoyama, Kunihiro Sugita, Ichiro Kurane,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 617-621.
Saumil N. Merchant, Michael E. Ravicz, Susan E. Voss, William T. Peake, John J. Rosowski,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 715-731.
J. G. Toner, G. John, E. J. McNaboe,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 533-536.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 22, pp 26-41.
P. V. M. Lim, R. G. M. Hughes, J. Oates,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 335-337.
Donald Harrison,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 235-242.
M. A. Thorp, J. Kruger, S. Oliver, E. L. K. Nilssen, C. A. J. Prescott,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 925-928.
Zhigang Cai, Guangyan Yu, Daquan Ma, Jing Tan, Zhaohui Yang, Xiaoming Zhang,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 243-247.
J. Ray, R. F. Gray, I. Court,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 338-343.
Glenice Gould,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 22, pp 42-60.
H. Zeitoun, G. S. Sandhu, M. Kuo, M. Macnamara,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 140-144.
A. Karkanevatos, T. H. J. Lesser,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 732-741.
Steven L. Sabin, Dennis Lee, Gady Har-El,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 929-933.
Fangchao Ma, Orlando GóMez-Marín, David J. Lee, Thomas Balkany,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 835-839.
J. D. T. Mason, R. J. Haynes, N. S. Jones,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 622-627.
S. J. Heo, L. Sennerby, M. Odersjö, G. Granström, A. Tjellström, N. Meredith,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 537-542.
Rachel E. Hardisty, Jane Fleming, Karen P. Steel,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 432-437.
S. T. Holgate, G. Mavroleon,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1126-1137.
Dipak Ranjan Nayak, R. Balakrishnan, K. Deepak Murthy,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 934-939.
G. Geyer, G. Baier, J. Helms,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 344-350.
Eero Vartiainen,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1034-1037.
Sven-Eric Stangerup, Dominika Drozdziewicz, Mirko Tos, Franco Trabalzini,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 742-749.
P. Arrué, M. Thorn Kany, E. Serrano, F. Lacroix, J. Percodani, E. Yardeni, J. J. Pessey, C. Manelfe,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 840-844.
C. J. Lobo, C. Hartley, W. T. Farrington,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 543-546.
Kyung-Su Kim, Sung-Shik Kim, Joo-Heon Yoon, Jae Wook Han,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 248-251.
Venkata N. Koka, Morbize Julieron, Jean Bourhis, Francois Janot, Anne Marie Le Ridant, Patrick Marandas, Bernard Luboinski, Guy Schwaab,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 628-633.
Yousry El-Sayed,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 145-149.
Rong-San Jiang, Chen-Yt Hsu, Jinq-Wen JANG,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 845-848.
Masanori Shiwa, Hiromi Kojima, Hiroshi Moriyama,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 750-754.
Markus Lilja, Simo Räisänen, Lars-Eric Stenfors,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 634-638.
P. J. Wormald, Mike McDonogh,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 547-551.
Olivier Deguine, André Maillard, Alain Bonafe, Hassan El Adouli, Michel Tremoulet, Bernard Fraysse,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 441-445.
S. Srinivasan, V. I. Nehru, S. B. S. Mann, V. K. Sharma, J. R. Bapuraj, A. Das,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1038-1041.
Frank J. Catalfumo, Avishay Golz, S. Thomas Westerman, Liane M. Gilbert, Henry Z. Joachims, David Goldenberg,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 940-943.
Yoav P. Talmi, Lev Bedrin, Alexander Waller, Zeev Horowitz, Yair Skurnik, Abraham Adunski, Jona Kronenberg,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 252-257.
K. W. Ah-See, G. Kelly, J. G. Todd, K. MacKenzie,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 351-354.
Tomoyuki Hoshino, Yoh Ueda, Hiroyuki Mukohdaka, Kunihiro Mizuta,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 150-153.
Hiroshi Hosoi, Kiyotaka Murata, Hiroki Kimura, Yoshiaki Tsuta,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 31-35.
D. S. Hill, M. N. Gaze, H. R. Grant,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1142-1146.
A. R. Baird, O. Hilmi, P. S. White, A. J. Robertson,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 755-757.
Michael J. Wareing, Vincent P. Callanan, David B. Mitchell,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 639-641.
J. Basterra, J. V. Bagán, E. Zapater, M. Armengot,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 355-359.
Valerie J. Lund,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 36-40.
Goshi Nishimura, Mamoru Tsukuda, Li-Xin Zhou, Shigeru Furukawa, Yuh Baba,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 552-555.
Rolf Haye, Jens P. Aanesen, Bernard Burtin, Fergal Donnelly, Christian Duby,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1042-1046.
Masashi Suzuki, Issei Ichimiya, Futoshi Matsushita, Goro Mogi,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 944-947.
Chao-nan Qian, Hua-Qing Min, Han-liang Lin, Ming-Huang Hong, Yan-li Ye,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 849-853.
E. D. van Veen, J. B. Jacobs, J. M. Bensing,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 258-263.
Tapio S. Karhuketo, Heikki J. Puhakka, Pekka J. Laippala,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 154-157.
D. Salvan, M. Julieron, P. Marandas, F. Janot, A. M. Leridant, C. Domenge, G. Mamelle, G. Schwaab, B. Luboinski,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 446-450.
Yogesh Bajaj, A. S. Bais, Bakul Mukherjee,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1147-1149.
A. K. Tewary, N. Riley, A. G. Kerr,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1150-1153.
Cheuk Lun Sham, John Kong Sang Woo, Charles Andrew van Hasselt,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 758-764.
S. Mortimore, P. J. Wormald, S. Oliver,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 264-268.
Meredydd Harries, Sarah Hawkins, Jeremy Hacking, Ieuan Hughes,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 451-454.
P. Murthy, M. R. Laing,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1047-1051.
C. H. Bulman,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 948-953.
Torfinnur Rubek Nielsen, Ulrik Koks Andreassen, Christopher Leigh Brown, Viggo Hulthin Balle, Jens Thomsen,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 556-560.
P. Murthy, M. R. Laing,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 41-44.
A. Khalifa, A. El-Guindy, F. Erfan,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 158-160.
Ken-ichi Watanabe, Toshihiko Kikuchi, Yukio Katori, Hiroko Fujiwara, Reiji Sugita, Tomonori Takasaka, Sho Hashimoto,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 360-364.
Ahmed A. Saada,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 854-859.
Pinky Agarwal, Arvind S. Bais,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 45-48.
H. M. Myatt, N. J. Holland, A. D. Cheesman,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1052-1057.
Lorenzo Pignataro, Pasquale Capaccio, Giancarlo Pruneri, Nadia Carboni, Roberto Buffa, Antonino Neri, Antonio Ottaviani,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 455-459.
P. J. D. Dawes, J.-P. Jeannon,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 860-864.
Y. H. Goh, D. S. Sethi,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 269-273.
Peter M. Brown, Sarah Fowler, Rowena Ryan, Raymond Rivron,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 161-165.
Zheng-Min Xu, Bart Vinck, Eddy De Vel, Paul van Cauwenberge,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1154-1161.
C. Martin Bailey, Patrick Froehlich, Hans L. J. Hoeve,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 765-768.
S. Mortimore, M. A. Thorp, E. L. K. Nilssen, S. Isaacs,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1058-1060.
K. W. Ah-See, N. C. Molony,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 460-463.
Jean-Michel Klossek, Luc Dubreuil, Hervé Richet, Béatrice Richet, Patrice Beutter,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1162-1166.
Louise Gumpert, Nicolas Kalach, Christophe Dupont, Philippe Contencin,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 49-54.
David Núñ;ez-Fernández, Jan Vokurka, Viktor Chrobok,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1167-1171.
Aydin Acar, Gürsel Dursun, Ömer Aydin, Yücel Akbaş,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 55-60.
Richard H. Vowles, Sabour Ghiacy, Anthony F. Jefferis,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1061-1064.
M. F. Abdel-Aziz, N. A. Gad El-Hak, P. N. Carding,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1172-1175.
Ercihan Güney, O. Gazi Yigitbaşi, Kürşat Canöz, Mustafa ÖZtürk, Ali Ersoy,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1176-1178.
J. D. Hern, S. C. Coley, L. J. Hollis, S. M. Jayaraj,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 396-398.
Antonio Del Forno, Cosmo Del Borgo, Adriana Turriziani, Fabrizio Ottaviani, Andrea Antinori, Massimo Fantoni,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 982-985.
Leo J. Wolansky, Peter K. Chiang, John Zurlo, Soly Baredes, Stephen R. Baker,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 790-792.
Yusufhan Süoǧlu, Burak Erdamar, İsmail Çölhan, O. Sami Katircioǧlu, Uǧur Çevikbas,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 588-591.
J. S. Mehta, M. M. Sharr,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 193-195.
S. C. Coley, A. Clifton, J. Britton,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 196-198.
R. Indudharan, T. Arni, K. K. Myint, N. Jackson,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 592-594.
J. D. T. Mason, N. S. Jones, R. J. Hughes, I. M. Holland,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 986-990.
F. Rapado, J. D. C. Bennett, J. M. Stringfellow,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 893-894.
P. J. Conboy, I. J. M. Johnson, T. Jaspan, N. S. Jones,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 679-681.
B. Ram, H. A. Saleh, A. R. Baird, R. E. Mountain,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 399-402.
G. A. Worley, J. D. Hern, G. J. O'Sullivan, P. Tassone, A. E. Hinton,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 793-795.
Rong-San Jiang, Chen-Yu Wu, Yee-Jee Jan, Chen-Yi Hsu,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 403-405.
Andreas W. Hilger, Andrew J. Prichard, Terry Jones,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 199-201.
Nadine S. Ives Aguilera, M. Uusafr, Bruce M. Wenig, Susan L. Abbondanzo,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 991-994.
Hari Shankar Sharma, Jafri Malin Abdullah, Nor Hayati Othman, Mahayidin Muhamad,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 682-686.
H. A. Saleh, B. Ram, J. L. Harmse, B. A. Michie, R. L. Blair,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 895-897.
Qian Wang, Shodayu Takashima, Fumiyoshi Takayama, Shinya Kobayashi, Shusuke Sone,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 796-799.
N. A. Bhat, Ye Lim Hock, N. O. Turner, A. R. Das Gupta,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 898-900.
C. T. Graham, A. H. N. Roberts, A. F. Padel,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 202-203.
Scott M. Graham, Henry T. Hoffman, Timothy M. McCulloch, Gerry F. Funk,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1098-1100.
A. J. Cain, B. A. Michie, B. C. Davis, B. Ram,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 687-689.
A. Böör, I. Jurkovič, I. Friedmann, M. Benický, Katarína Dudriková, R. Krajcár,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 800-801.
Ming-Ru Wu, Chang-Te Shih, Chi-Wei Yeh,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1202-1204.
Bodil Laub Petersen, Christian Buchwald, Jan Gerstoft, Poul Bretlau, Henning Lindeberg,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1101-1104.
Alberto Muñoz, Elena Martínez-Chamorro,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 98-102.
S. S. Backhouse, G. R. Shone, A. G. Douglas-Jones,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 802-804.
J. L. Lancaster, D. J. Alderson, I. W. Sherman, A. H. Clark,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 500-502.
M. Saleem, P. D. McArthur, B. Hainau, S. B. Velagapudi,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1205-1207.
N. C. Molony, A. Stewart, K. Ah-See, M. McLaren,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 103-105.
A. V. H. Greig, P. D. R. Spraggs, E. Mannion, P. H. Rhys-Evans, C. Fisher,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 503-505.
C. G. Mahnke, U. Jänig, J. A. Werner,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 106-109.
Alfio Ferlito, Alessandra Rinaldo, Kenneth O. Devaney, Stephanie L. Devaney, Christopher M. Milroy,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 710-714.
Selective lateral neck dissection for laryngeal cancer in the clinically negative neck: is it justified?
Alfio Ferlito, Alessandra Rinaldo,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 921-924.
Is primary radiotherapy an appropriate option for the treatment of verrucous carcinoma of the head and neck?
Alfio Ferlito, Alessandra Rinaldo, Giacinto M. Mannarà,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 132-139.
Alfio Ferlito, Leon Barnes, Alessandra Rinaldo, Douglas R. Gnepp, Christopher M. Milroy,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 827-834.
N. S. Jones, A. S. Carney, A. Davis,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1019-1030.
Selective lateral neck dissection for laryngeal cancer with limited metastatic disease: is it indicated?
Alfio Ferlito, Alessandra Rinaldo,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1031-1033.
Nick Jones, David Rog,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 11-24.
D. P. Morris, D. A. Luff, S. P. Hargreaves, M. P. Rothera,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1138-1141.
Level I dissection for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer: is it indicated?
Alfio Ferlito, Alessandra Rinaldo,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 438-440.
A. O. Owa, R. W. R. Farrell,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 642-643.
V. Srinivasan, D. J. Premachandra,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 561-564.
C. B. Koay, D. Commins, G. J. Bates,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 954-955.
D. J. Alderson, D. G. O'Sullivan,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 644-645.
M. A. Thorp,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 865-866.
Masahiro Kawaida, Hiroyuki Fukuda, Naoyuki Kohno,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 464-466.
A. Sani,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 467-468.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, pp 596-598.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 10, pp 996-1000.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 204-211.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 7, pp 691-693.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 3, pp 315-317.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 8, pp 806-809.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, pp 418-421.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 9, pp 903-906.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 2, pp 213-217.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 5, pp 507-512.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1112-1115.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1213-1217.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 1, pp 113-115.
A. Simon Carney, Alexander R. Manara,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 6, p 599.
T. E. Mitchell, J. M. Pickles,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, p 422.
R. Indudharan,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, p 1218.
J. K. Brennand,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, p 1218.
J. M. Maestre, C. Morales,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, pp 1218-1219.
Ferdinando Grandori,	The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 12, p 1219.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 11, pp 1105-1110.
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, Volume 112 Issue 4, p 422.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
A. The avails of the tax imposed by this Chapter from the sale of services as defined in R.S. 47:301(14)(a) in Vernon Parish under the provisions of this Chapter shall be credited to the Bond Security and Redemption Fund, and after a sufficient amount is allocated from that fund to pay all the obligations secured by the full faith and credit of the state which become due and payable within any fiscal year, the treasurer shall pay the remainder of such funds into a special fund which is hereby created in the state treasury and designated as the “Vernon Parish Legislative Community Improvement Fund”.
B. The monies in the Vernon Parish Legislative Community Improvement Fund shall be subject to annual appropriations by the legislature. The monies in the fund shall be available exclusively for the purposes provided for in Subsections C and E of this Section. All unexpended and unencumbered monies in the fund shall remain in the fund. The monies in the fund shall be invested by the treasurer in the same manner as the monies in the state general fund, and all interest earned shall be deposited into the state general fund.
C. For purposes of this Section, “improvements” shall include acquisition of land and acquisition and construction of buildings for use by the Vernon Convention Facility; other capital improvements in Vernon Parish; and any other costs of improvements, operation, or maintenance in Vernon Parish for recreational facilities, museums, fishing ramps, and parks.
D. The Vernon Parish Legislative Community Improvement Board shall consist of those state senators and representatives representing all or a part of Vernon Parish.
(1) Twenty percent of the money shall be appropriated to the Vernon Parish Tourist and Recreation Commission to be administered and distributed by the commission to be used for improvements in Vernon Parish as that term is defined in Subsection C of this Section. Administrative costs or debt service associated with this Subsection shall be no more than five percent of the amount appropriated.
(2) Ten percent of the money shall be appropriated to the Vernon Parish Council on Aging, to be distributed equally to each of the senior citizen centers in the parish. Administrative costs or debt service associated with this Subsection shall be no more than five percent of the amount appropriated. The use of any funds distributed under this Paragraph of this Subsection are subject to the approval of a majority of the legislators who represent Vernon Parish.
(3) Twelve percent for the operation and maintenance of the arena facility in Vernon Parish.
(a) Fifteen percent to the Town of New Llano.
(b) Seven percent to the Village of Simpson.
(c) Seven percent to the Town of Rosepine.
(d) Seven percent to the Town of Hornbeck.
(e) Seven percent to the Village of Anacoco.
(5) The remaining fifteen percent of the money shall be transferred to the Vernon Parish Legislative Improvement Fund No. 2 as provided by R.S. 47:302.54.
Acts 1992, No. 957, §1, eff. July 1, 1992; Acts 1992, No. 983, §1, eff. for the taxable periods on or after July 1, 1993; Acts 1995, No. 854, §1, eff. July 1, 1995; Acts 2003, No. 799, §1, eff. July 1, 2003; Acts 2004, No. 715, §1, eff. July 1, 2004; Acts 2008, No. 864, §1, eff. July 9, 2008.

matches: §1 §1 §1 §1 §1 §1