ees 
		WHERE DATE_PART('year', to_date) = 9999))
	AND (DATE_PART('year', birth_date) BETWEEN 1952 AND 1955)
	AND (DATE_PART('year', hire_date) BETWEEN 1985 AND 1988);
	
SELECT * FROM retiring_emp;


-- Full info on retiring employees

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS retiring_info CASCADE;

WITH s AS (
	SELECT emp_no, salary, from_date AS salary_from, to_date AS salary_to
	FROM (SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY emp_no 
									  ORDER BY to_date DESC, from_date DESC) AS rn
		  FROM salaries) AS sr
	WHERE rn = 1
), tt AS (
	SELECT emp_no, title, from_date AS title_from, to_date AS title_to
	FROM (SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY emp_no 
									  ORDER BY to_date DESC, from_date DESC) AS rn
		  FROM titles) AS tr
	WHERE rn = 1
), de AS (
	SELECT emp_no, dept_no, from_date AS dept_from, to_date AS dept_to
	FROM (SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY emp_no 
									  ORDER BY to_date DESC, from_date DESC) AS rn
		  FROM dept_employees) AS der
	WHERE rn = 1
)
SELECT 
	re.emp_no, re.first_name, re.last_name, re.gender, re.birth_date, re.hire_date,
	tt.title, tt.title_from, tt.title_to,
	s.salary, s.salary_from, s.salary_to,
	d.dept_no, d.dept_name, de.dept_from, de.dept_to
INTO retiring_info
FROM retiring_emp AS re
	JOIN s ON re.emp_no = s.emp_no
	JOIN tt ON re.emp_no = tt.emp_no
	JOIN de ON re.emp_no = de.emp_no
	JOIN departments AS d ON de.dept_no = d.dept_no;

SELECT * FROM retiring_full;
		

-- Number of retiring employees by department

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS retiring_dept CASCADE;

SELECT dept_no, dept_name, COUNT(*)
INTO retiring_dept
FROM retiring_info
GROUP BY dept_no, dept_name
ORDER BY 3 DESC;

SELECT * FROM retiring_dept;
		

-- Number of retiring employees by position

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS retiring_pos CASCADE;

SELECT title, COUNT(*)
INTO retiring_pos
FROM retiring_info
GROUP BY title
ORDER BY 2 DESC;

SELECT * FROM retiring_pos;


-- Info on each department's manager

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS manager_info CASCADE;

WITH curr_managers AS (
	SELECT dm.*, d.dept_name
	FROM (SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY dept_no 
									  ORDER BY to_date DESC) AS rn
		  FROM dept_managers) AS dm
		JOIN departments AS d ON dm.dept_no = d.dept_no
	WHERE dm.rn = 1
)
SELECT 
	cm.dept_no, cm.dept_name, e.emp_no, e.first_name, e.last_name, e.gender, 
	e.birth_date, e.hire_date, cm.from_date AS manager_from, cm.to_date AS manager_to
INTO manager_info
FROM curr_managers AS cm
	JOIN employees AS e ON cm.emp_no = e.emp_no;

SELECT * FROM manager_info;U.S. Supreme Court Illinois v. Abbott & Assocs., Inc., 460 U.S. 557 (1983)
Illinois v. Abbott & Assocs., Inc.
No. 81-1114
Argued November 29, 1982
Decided March 29, 1983
460 U.S. 557
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Section § §. 460 U. S. 565 -573.
(a) Rule 6(e) establishes a "General Rule of Secrecy" by providing that grand jury transcripts shall remain in the custody of the attorney for the Federal Government "unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular case." One seeking disclosure under Rule 6(e) is normally required to make a showing of a "particularized need" in order to obtain access to grand jury materials. Under that Rule, a state attorney general cannot obtain access to federal grand jury proceedings without federal court approval, and such approval cannot be obtained merely by alleging that the materials are relevant to an actual or potential civil antitrust action. Accordingly, it follows from the language of § 4F(b) mandating disclosure of investigative files and other materials only "to
the extent permitted by law," that the Illinois Attorney General is not entitled to the disclosure sought in this case. Pp. 460 U. S. 565 -568.
(b) Section 4F(b)'s legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress intended the section to recognize the "General Rule of Secrecy," and did not intend to change applicable law concerning grand jury materials. Pp. 460 U. S. 568 -571.
(c) The Act's general goals of enhancing federal-state cooperation and encouraging more state lawsuits against price-fixers are not sufficient to show that Congress intended to change existing rules of law, absent an affirmative expression of intent to do so. Pp. 460 U. S. 572 -573.
659 F.2d 800, affirmed.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined., post, p. 460 U. S. 573., 90 Stat. 1395, 15 U.S.C. §
Courts of Appeals, [ Footnote 1 ] the Seventh Circuit rejected this contention. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 455 U.S. 1015 (1982), and now affirm.
I. [ Footnote 2 ] At the time the State filed its petition, most of the defendants had entered pleas of nolo contendere to the federal charges and one had been found guilty by a jury, but eight defendants were still awaiting trial. [ Footnote 3 ] The Justice Department had refused the State's request for the grand jury materials, [ Footnote 4 ] explaining that they
could not be disclosed without a court order under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [ Footnote) [ Footnote 6 ] and Rule 6(e) in support of. [ Footnote 7 ] Certain defendants in the civil suits and others who had testified before the grand juries intervened to oppose disclosure.
The District Court first considered the State's claim that it had a statutory right of access under). Noting the absence of any special showing of need for access to the grand jury materials, the scope of the material otherwise available to the plaintiffs, and the interests in grand jury secrecy that survived the termination of criminal proceedings, [ Footnote 8 ] the District Court denied all of the petitions for disclosure. The denial, however, was without prejudice to renewed requests under Rule 6(e) after discovery efforts created a basis for more narrowly focused requests showing "particularized needs." [ Footnote 9 ] §).
II
Section 4F(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § § 4F(b), 15 U.S.C. § 15f(b), in order to assist a state attorney general in evaluating this §. [ Footnote 10 ]
Since 1946, the disclosure of grand jury minutes has been governed by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In so many words, the Rule establishes a "General Rule of Secrecy," a knowing violation of which "may be punished as a contempt of court." [ Footnote 11 ] The Rule provides that
grand jury transcripts shall remain in the custody of the attorney for the Government "unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular case." [ Footnote 12 ] There is only one exception to the general prohibition against disclosure without prior court approval, but that exception is limited to Federal Government personnel performing a specified federal law enforcement function. [ Footnote." [ Footnote 14 ] We need not delineate the precise contours of that standard in this case, because the State made no attempt to make any such showing in the District Court, see n 8, supra, and has consistently maintained that it need not shoulder that burden. [ Footnote 15 ]. [ Footnote. [ Footnote 17 ] It therefore follows from the plain language of the Act that the State Attorney General is not entitled to the disclosure he seeks in this case.
III
If the text of § 4F(b) left any doubt concerning its recognition of the "General Rule of Se