OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Hood/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 148
United States v. Hood
Argued: March 4, 1952. --- Decided: March 31, 1952
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice REED, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice MINTON concur, dissenting.
18 U.S.C. § 215, 18 U.S.C.A. § 215, makes it a crime to solicit or receive political contributions on the basis of a promise to help 'any person' obtain 'any appointive office or place under the United States * * *.' The Government argues that this statute makes it criminal to promise to help someone get an 'office or place' even though there is no such office or place in existence. Apparently sensing that such an extraordinary expansion of this criminal statute might not be accepted, the Government argues for a lesser expansion sufficient to include an 'office or place' if there is a 'substantial possibility' that it may be 'set up in the near future.' The Court's construction is apparently the same although there are slight verbal variations. It reads the statute as punishing promises made to use 'influence in connection with an office which had been authorized by law and which, at the time of the sale, might reasonably be expected to be established.' The words used in this statute convey no such meaning to me. I think that any person reading the words 'office or place' would immediately think of them as applying to an actual, existing 'office or place'. This surely would be a fair construction of the language used, and I think it is the construction that should be compelled in connection with this criminal statute. It requires considerable straining to say that Congress 'plainly and unmistakably', United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 411, 61 L.Ed. 857, made it a crime to use influence in connection with an 'office or place' that did not exist. See United States v. Halseth, 342 U.S. 277, 72 S.Ct. 275. As a matter of fact, the 'reasonably to be expected' office or place here talked about was not only nonexistent at the time the alleged promise was made-it has not been 'set up' yet. We should not stretch this statute to cover conduct which is not prohibited on the theory that Congress would have done so had it thought about it. United States v. Weitzel, 246 U.S. 533, 543, 38 S.Ct. 381, 382, 62 L.Ed. 872; McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L.Ed. 816; Pierce v. United States, 314 U.S. 306, 62 S.Ct. 237, 86 L.Ed. 226.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Hough

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 71
United States v. Hough
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simith for the appellant.
Mr. Philip Phillips and Mr. W. Hallett Phillips, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Hosmer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 432
United States v. Hosmer
THIS was an appeal by the United States from the judgment of the Court of Claims, giving to a discharged soldier a bounty which he claimed of $100.
Mr. Talbot, for the United States; Mr. Schouler, contra.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Krall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 385
United States v. Krall
Sol. Gen. Richards and Chas. W. Russell, for the United states.
Edgar Wilson, for appellee.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Kurtz

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
164 U.S. 49
United States v. Kurtz
This was a petition by Kurtz, who was clerk and commissioner of the circuit court for the Eastern district of Wisconsin, for fees alleged to have been earned by him in both capacities.
The case resulted in the allowance of a large number of disputed items, and a final judgment in favor of the petitioner in the sum of $165.10. 26 Ct. Cl. 630. The government appealed, and assigned as error the allowance of certain items specifically set forth in the opinion.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge, for the United States.
C. C. Lancaster, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Frankfurter Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 33
United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines
Argued: Oct. 20, 1952. --- Decided: Nov 10, 1952
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
This decision gives a capricious twist to the law. One would assume from a reading of the opinion in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616, that the failure of a federal agency to use the type of examiner prescribed by Congress in the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., vitiated the proceedings whether objection was raised or not. The Congress decided to separate the judicial functions of examiners from the investigative and prosecuting functions. It required the separation in cases involving property interests as well as those involving personal liberty. It condemned as unfair a practice which had grown up of allowing one man to be the police officer, the prosecutor, and the judge.
Violation of that requirement led the Court in Wong Yang Sung's case to issue a writ of habeas corpus to save an alien from deportation where the hearing examiner did not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. That was a collateral attack on the administrative proceeding, successfully made even though no objection to the examiner was raised at the hearing.
The objection raised in the present case likewise was not made at the hearing; but it was made before review of the order had been completed. It would seem, therefore, that reversal of this administrative order would follow a fortiori from Wong Yang Sung's case.
No one knows how the commingling of police, prosecutor and judicial functions in one person may affect a particular decision. In some situations it might make no difference; in others it might subtly corrupt the administrative process. The only important consideration for us is that Congress has condemned the practice; and we as supervisors of the federal system should see to it that the law is enforced, not selectively but in all cases coming before us.
Of course, an agency that flouts the mandate for fair examiners does not lose jurisdiction of the case. Even habeas corpus is no longer restricted to the testing of 'jurisdiction' in the historic sense. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 467, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1024, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 24, 59 S.Ct. 442, 444, 83 L.Ed. 455. But the action of the Commission in the present case created an error that permeates the entire proceeding. It is error that goes to the very vitals of the case. I would therefore set aside the order and send the case back for a hearing that meets the statutory standards of fairness. I would make the rule of Wong Yang Sung's case good for more than the day and the occasion.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. La Franca

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 568
United States v. La Franca
Argued: Jan. 27, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. E. Howard McCaleb, Jr., of New Orleans, La., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 33
United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines
Argued: Oct. 20, 1952. --- Decided: Nov 10, 1952
Mr. Edward M. Reidy, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. B. W. La Tourette, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 490

* 490 U.S. 1 (1989) United States v. Sokolow
* 490 U.S. 19 (1989) City of Dallas v. Stanglin
* 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield
* 490 U.S. 66 (1989) Amerada Hess Corporation v. Director, Division of Taxation, New Jersey Department of the Treasury
* 490 U.S. 82 (1989) Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation v. Ticktin
* 490 U.S. 89 (1989) Wrenn v. Benson
* 490 U.S. 93 (1989) California v. Arc America Corporation
* 490 U.S. 107 (1989) Massachusetts v. Morash
* 490 U.S. 122 (1989) Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.
* 490 U.S. 153 (1989) American Foreign Service Association v. Garfinkel
* 490 U.S. 163 (1989) Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico
* 490 U.S. 212 (1989) Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Company
* 490 U.S. 225 (1989) Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Association Inc
* 490 U.S. 228 (1989) Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
* 490 U.S. 296 (1989) Mallard v. United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa
* 490 U.S. 319 (1989) Neitzke v. Williams
* 490 U.S. 332 (1989) Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
* 490 U.S. 360 (1989) Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
* 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Graham v. Connor
* 490 U.S. 401 (1989) Thornburgh v. Abbott
* 490 U.S. 435 (1989) United States v. Halper
* 490 U.S. 454 (1989) Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson
* 490 U.S. 477 (1989) Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
* 490 U.S. 488 (1989) Maleng v. Cook
* 490 U.S. 495 (1989) Lauro Lines v. Chasser
* 490 U.S. 504 (1989) Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Company
* 490 U.S. 536 (1989) Hardin v. Straub
* 490 U.S. 545 (1989) Finley v. United States
* 490 U.S. 581 (1989) Mansell v. Mansell
* 490 U.S. 605 (1989) Asarco Incorporated v. Kadish
* 490 U.S. 638 (1989) Hildwin v. Florida
* 490 U.S. 642 (1989) Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc. v. Atonio
* 490 U.S. 680 (1989) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 490 U.S. 714 (1989) Mead Corporation v. Tilley
* 490 U.S. 730 (1989) Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
* 490 U.S. 754 (1989) Tompkins v. Texas
* 490 U.S. 755 (1989) Martin v. K Wilks Personnel Board of Jefferson County Alabama
* 490 U.S. 794 (1989) Alabama v. Smith
* 490 U.S. 805 (1989) South Carolina v. Gathers
* 490 U.S. 826 (1989) Newman-Green Inc v. Alfonzo-Larrain
* 490 U.S. 844 (1989) California State Board of Equalization v. Sierra Summit Inc
* 490 U.S. 858 (1989) Gomez v. United States Chavez-Tesina
* 490 U.S. 877 (1989) Sullivan v. Hudson
* 490 U.S. 900 (1989) Lorance v. AT&T Technologies Inc
* 490 U.S. 920 (1989) California v. United States
* 490 U.S. 1012 (1989) Keenan v. California
* 490 U.S. 1029 (1989) Pueblo of Acoma v. Padilla
* 490 U.S. 1040 (1989) Laws v. Armontrout
* 490 U.S. 1052 (1989) Paulino v. United States
* 490 U.S. 1054 (1989) Hambsch III v. United States
* 490 U.S. 1059 (1989) Adams v. Dugger
* 490 U.S. 1114 (1989) Christy v. Lujan
# United States Reports/Volume 491

* 491 U.S. 1 (1989) Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Company
* 491 U.S. 22 (1989) Dellmuth v. Muth
* 491 U.S. 58 (1989) Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
* 491 U.S. 95 (1989) Quinn v. Millsap
* 491 U.S. 110 (1989) Michael H. v. Gerald D.
* 491 U.S. 164 (1989) Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
* 491 U.S. 244 (1989) Colonial American Life Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 491 U.S. 263 (1989) Carella v. California
* 491 U.S. 274 (1989) Missouri v. Jenkins Agyei
* 491 U.S. 299 (1989) Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
* 491 U.S. 324 (1989) Healy v. Beer Institute
* 491 U.S. 350 (1989) New Orleans Public Service Inc v. Council of City of New Orleans
* 491 U.S. 376 (1989) Jones v. Thomas
* 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Texas v. Johnson
* 491 U.S. 440 (1989) Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice Washington Legal Foundation
* 491 U.S. 490 (1989) Pittsburgh Lake Erie Railroad Company v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
* 491 U.S. 524 (1989) The Florida Star v. B.J.F.
* 491 U.S. 554 (1989) United States v. Zolin
* 491 U.S. 576 (1989) Massachusetts v. Oakes
* 491 U.S. 600 (1989) United States v. Monsanto
* 491 U.S. 617 (1989) Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States
* 491 U.S. 657 (1989) Harte-Hanks Communications Inc v. Connaughton
* 491 U.S. 701 (1989) Jett v. Dallas Independent School District
* 491 U.S. 754 (1989) Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes
* 491 U.S. 781 (1989) Ward v. Rock Against Racism
# United States Reports/Volume 489

* 489 U.S. 1 (1989) Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock
* 489 U.S. 46 (1989) Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana
* 489 U.S. 87 (1989) Blanchard v. Bergeron
* 489 U.S. 101 (1989) Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. Bruch
* 489 U.S. 121 (1989) Mesa v. California
* 489 U.S. 141 (1989) Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
* 489 U.S. 169 (1989) Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney
* 489 U.S. 180 (1989) In re McDonald
* 489 U.S. 189 (1989) Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
* 489 U.S. 214 (1989) Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee
* 489 U.S. 235 (1989) United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.
* 489 U.S. 255 (1989) Harris v. Reed
* 489 U.S. 288 (1989) Teague v. Lane
* 489 U.S. 346 (1989) Castille v. Peoples
* 489 U.S. 353 (1989) United States v. Stuart
* 489 U.S. 378 (1989) City of Canton v. Harris
* 489 U.S. 401 (1989) Dugger v. Adams
* 489 U.S. 426 (1989) Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants
* 489 U.S. 468 (1989) Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University
* 489 U.S. 493 (1989) Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas
* 489 U.S. 527 (1989) Karahalios v.
* 489 U.S. 538 (1989) Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
* 489 U.S. 546 (1989) Barnard v. Thorstenn
* 489 U.S. 561 (1989) Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
* 489 U.S. 593 (1989) Brower v. County of Inyo
* 489 U.S. 602 (1989) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
* 489 U.S. 656 (1989) National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab
* 489 U.S. 688 (1989) Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris
* 489 U.S. 705 (1989) Schmuck v. United States
* 489 U.S. 726 (1989) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Clark
* 489 U.S. 749 (1989) United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
* 489 U.S. 782 (1989) Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Independent School District
* 489 U.S. 794 (1989) Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States
* 489 U.S. 803 (1989) Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury
* 489 U.S. 829 (1989) Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security
* 489 U.S. 836 (1989) Zant v. Moore
* 489 U.S. 838 (1989) Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Graham
* 489 U.S. 1034 (1989) Dudley v. Stubbs
* 489 U.S. 1040 (1989) Crawford v. Georgia
* 489 U.S. 1042 (1989) DePew v. Ohio
* 489 U.S. 1044 (1989) Britz v. Illinois
* 489 U.S. 1060 (1989) Farmer v. Sumner
* 489 U.S. 1091 (1989) Bonin v. California (489 U.S. 1091)
* 489 U.S. 1093 (1989) King v. Lynaugh
* 489 U.S. 1301 (1989) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
# United States Reports/Volume 49

8 How.[ard], ( 12 L.Ed. )
* 49 U.S. 1 (1793) The United States v. Burroughs E Carr
* 49 U.S. 10 (1946) Harriet Ladd v. Joseph B Ladd
* 49 U.S. 41 The United States v. Thomas Staats Junior
* 49 U.S. 48 (1958) Francis Surgett Apellant v. Peter M Lapice and Edward Whittlesey
* 49 U.S. 73 (1841) Asher Nathan v. The State of Louisiana
* 49 U.S. 83 (1844) the United States v. McKean Buchanan
* 49 U.S. 107 Thomas Williams Administrator of Benjamin Baldwin Deceased v. John W and William Benedict Trading Under the Firm and Style of Benedict Benedict
* 49 U.S. 113 (1844) The United States v. The Heirs of Boisdor E Same
* 49 U.S. 124 John Bennett v. Samuel F Butterworth
* 49 U.S. 134 (1836) Samuel Veazie v. Nathaniel L Williams
* 49 U.S. 163 James Phalen v. The Commonwealth of Virginia
* 49 U.S. 170 (1839) Thomas McClanahan v. Richard Davis
* 49 U.S. 183 Charlotte Taylor v. James Taylor
* 49 U.S. 210 John Maxwell v. Joseph S Kennedy
* 49 U.S. 223 (1834) Samuel Marsh v. Edward Brooks
* 49 U.S. 234 Moses Wanzer v. Tullius C Tupper and John H Rollins Under the Firm of Tupper Rollins
* 49 U.S. 235 (1834) Eli Clark William Green and Hugh McGill v. The President Directors and Company of the Manufacturers' Insurance Company
* 49 U.S. 251 (1802) Nathaniel Lord v. John W Veazie
* 49 U.S. 256 Elijah Peale v. Martha Phipps
* 49 U.S. 258 (1836) Jacob Wilson v. Daniel Barnum
* 49 U.S. 263 John Doe v. Thomas Watson
* 49 U.S. 274 Jonathan Reed v. The Proprietors of Locks and Canals on Merrimac River
* 49 U.S. 293 (1806) Am Ed Ee Menard's Heirs v. Samuel Massey
* 49 U.S. 317 (1806) Lewis Bissell v. Mary B Penrose
* 49 U.S. 345 (1820) Adam Mills v. Simeon Stoddard
* 49 U.S. 366 Edmund Caldwell Surviving Partner of James Lynd Jr and Company v. The United States
* 49 U.S. 384 Edmund Gibson v. Bradford B Stevens
* 49 U.S. 402 (1837) John West v. Joseph Smith and Ellen His Wife
* 49 U.S. 414 John Murrill and the Bank of New Orleans v. Alexander Neill and William T Somerville
* 49 U.S. 429 (1843) Daniel Grove v. John McP Brien Robert Gilmor William Fowle William H Fowle and George D Fowle Trading Under the Firm of William Fowle Sons Robert Gilmor
* 49 U.S. 441 Sheldon v. Sill
* 49 U.S. 451 Jacob Le Roy v. William Beard
* 49 U.S. 470 George Prentice and George Weissinger Copartners Doing Business Under the Style and Firm of Prentice Weissinger v. Platoff Zane's Administrator
* 49 U.S. 490 Alexandrine Mager v. Felix Grima
* 49 U.S. 495 (1814) Charles Williamson and Catharine His Wife v. Joseph Berry
* 49 U.S. 565 Charles Williamson and Catharine Williamson His Wife v. The Irish Presbyterian Congregation of the City of New York
* 49 U.S. 566 Charles Williamson and Catharine Williamson His Wife Rupert Cochran and Isabella His Wife and Bayard Clarke v. George Ball
* 49 U.S. 569 (1819) Adam Mills v. The County of St. Clair and James Harrison
* 49 U.S. 586 (1840) Joseph Kennedy v. The Bank of the State of Georgia
# United States v. Marshall Transport Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 31
United States v. Marshall Transport Company
Argued: March 28, 1944. --- Decided: April 24, 1944
Appeal from the District Court of United States for the District of maryland.
Mr. Daniel H. Kunkel, of Washington, D.C., for appellants, the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Charles E. Cotterill, of New York City, for appellants Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., et al.
Mr. Robert C. Winter, of Detroit, Mich., for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Marshall

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* 488 F.2d 1169
* UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
* v.
* Robert MARSHALL, Dennis EISCHEN, Ronald Lee MORGAN Defendants-Appellants
* No. 72-3195
* United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California A. Andrew Hauk, District Judge, Presiding

### Panel Information

Before: DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Duniway

### Counsel

Robert H. Lund, Long Beach, Cal., for defendants-appellants Eischen and Morgan.
Major A. Langer, of Demler, Perona, Langer & Bergkvist, Long Beach, Cal., for defendant-appellant Marshall.
Gregory C. Glynn, Asst. U. S. Atty., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

#### Footnotes

* ↑ The Honorable James M. Burns, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Marshall Silver Mining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
129 U.S. 579
United States v. Marshall Silver Mining Company
[Statement of Case from pages 579-582 intentionally omitted]
John H. Hickcox, Jr., and J. K. Redington, for appellant.
R. S. Morrison and Simon Sterne, for respondents.
MILLER, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Marshall & Ilsley Bank Stock Corp. (387 U.S. 238)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 238
United States v. Marshall & Ilsley Bank Stock Corp.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Nathan Lewin, Howard E. Shapiro and Herbert G. Schoepke, for the United States.
Maxwell H. Herriott and Louis Quarles, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Marshall & Ilsley Bank Stock Corp. (387 U.S. 238)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 238
United States v. Marshall & Ilsley Bank Stock Corp.
The judgment is reversed. Section 11(e) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, 80 Stat. 241; United States v. First City National Bank of Houston, 386 U.S. 361, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 151.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse