OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Mitchell (109 U.S. 146)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 146
United States v. Mitchell
This was a suit by the appellee, Charles Mitchell, to recover a balance which he claimed to be due him as Indian interpreter at the Santee agency in the state of Nebraska, under section 2070, title 23, of the Revised Statutes. That section, and section 2076, which constitutes part of the same title, and also relates to the compensation of interpreters, are as follows:
Sec. 2070. 'The salaries of interpreters lawfully employed in the service of the United States in Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico, shall be five hundred dollars a year each, and of all so employed elsewhere, four hundred dollars a year each.'
Sec. 2076. 'The several compensations prescribed by this title shall be in full of all emoluments and allowances whatsoever.'
It appears from the findings of the court of claims that the appellee was an interpreter at the Santee Indian agency in the state of Nebraska, duly appointed under section 2068 of the Revised Statutes, and that he held the office and discharged its duties for several periods between July 1, 1878, and November 22, 1882, his whole term of service amounting to three years and seven months. During all this time, instead of the salary of $400 per annum, as provided in section 2070, he was paid only at the rate of $300 per annum, for which he gave a receipt in full for his services, congress having appropriated that sum only for his yearly compensation during his term of service. The appellee, contending that he was entitled to a salary at the rate of $400 per annum, brought this suit to recover the difference between his salary at that rate and the sum which he was actually paid. The court of claims, adopting the views of the appellee, rendered a judgment in his favor for $353.33, from which the United States appealed.
Geo. A. King, for appellee.
WOODS, 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. Mitchell (271 U.S. 9)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 9
United States v. Mitchell (271 U.S. 9)
Argued: March 18, 19, 1926. --- Decided: April 12, 1926
The Attorney General and Messrs. Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and A. W. Gregg and T. H. Lewis, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Messrs. A. L. Humes and Stafford Smith, both of New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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. Mitchell (322 U.S. 65)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 65
United States v. Mitchell (322 U.S. 65)
Argued: March 27, 1944. --- Decided: April 24, 1944
See 322 U.S. 770, 64 S.Ct. 1257.
Mr. Charles Fahy, Sol.Gen., of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Mr. James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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. Mitchell (403 U.S. 190)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 190
United States et al. v. Mitchell et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
No. 798 Argued: April 20, 1971 --- Decided: June 7, 1971
A married woman domiciled in Louisiana, where under state law the wife has a present vested interest in community property equal to that of her husband, is personally liable for federal income taxes on her one-half interest in community income realized during the existence of the community, notwithstanding her subsequent renunciation under state law of her community rights, since federal, not state, law governs what is exempt from federal taxation. Pp. 194-206.
430 F. 2d 1 and 7, reversed.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
William Terry Bray argued the cause for the United States et al. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, Matthew J. Zinn, and Crombie J.D. Garrett.
Paul K. Kirkpatrick, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Mitchell. Patrick M. Schott argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Angello.

## 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. Ortiz

United States Supreme Court
176 U.S. 422
United States v. Ortiz
Argued: October 11, 1899. --- Decided: February 26, 1900
Messrs. William H. Pope, Solicitor General Richards, and matthew G. Reynolds for appellant.
Mr. T. B. Catron for appellees.
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. Oregon State Medical Society

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 326
United States v. Oregon State Medical Society
Argued: Jan. 4 and 7, 1952. --- Decided: April 28, 1952
[Syllabus from pages 326-327 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Stanley M. Silverberg, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Nicholas Jaurequy, Portland, Or., for appellees.
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 v. Osio

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 273
United States v. Osio
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Stanton for the United States, and by Mr. Gillet for the appellee.
Mr. Gillet made the following points:
1. No form of grant is required by the order of the Supreme Government, authorizing the grant of the islands, nor required by the colonization law or regulations.
2. Meritorious, useful, and patriotic services, were good considerations for a grant.
3. Confirmation by the Departmental Assembly is not necessary in order to confirm a California grant made by a Governor. That it was the duty of the Government, and not of the grantee, to present it for confirmation.
4. When an equitable right has once vested under a California grant by the Governor, it cannot be divested, except by the denouncement of a third person legally made.
5. The question of the bona fides of this grant cannot now be raised, as it was not raised below.
6. Conditions subsequent, if not complied with, do not render the grant void, nor authorize the Government to forfeit the grantee's rights to its own use.
7. When an officer of the Mexican Government, who had the legal power to make grants of land, exercises that power in a manner to create a reasonable belief, in the mind of an applicant for a grant, that the instrument given is a grant, and he takes possession, occupies the same, and makes improvements thereon in good faith, such grant, if not in strict legal form, creates an equitable right, which entitles the grantee to a confirmation thereof.
8. By the laws, usages, and customs of Mexico, this claim would have been confirmed, and therefore this court must confirm it.
9. It is a well-settled rule, that equity cannot be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing forfeitures, but only to avoid them.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD 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. Ortega

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
24 U.S. 467
United States v. Ortega
March 16th.
Mr. Justice WASHINGTON 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. Otis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 115
United States v. Otis
Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for the United States.
James Coleman, for Otis.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# When Etna basks and purrs

When Etna basks and purrs Naples is more afraid Than when she shows her Garnet Tooth — Security is loud —
# When Father Carves the Duck

We all look on with anxious eyes When Father carves the duck And mother almost always sighs When Father carves the duck Then all of us prepare to rise And hold our bibs before our eyes And be prepared for some surprise When Father carves the duck.
He braces up and grabs a fork Whene'er he carves a duck And won't allow a soul to talk Until he's carved the duck. The fork is jabbed into the sides Across the breast the knife he slides While every careful person hides From flying chips of duck.
The platter's always sure to slip When Father carves a duck. And how it makes the dishes skip! Potatoes fly amuck! The squash and cabbage leap in space We get some gravy in our face And Father mutters Hindu grace Whene'er he carves a duck.
We then have learned to walk around the dining room and pluck From off the windowsills and walls Our share of Father's duck While Father growls and blows and jaws And swears the knife was full of flaws And Mother laughs at him because He couldn't carve a duck.
# When God Is Born, No Power Prevails

Source, including CC-BY-SA license:
When God is born, no power prevails, Our Lord in nakedness enwound. All fire congeals, all luster pales, Contained is He that knows no bound. Despised, in glory comes untold, A mortal king for aye to reign. The Word of God in flesh behold, Now born to share our life mundane.
What have ye Heavens o’er the earth, That God forsook His sweet delight, And wished to take a human birth, To share our every toil and plight? And He did suffer unconsoled, And we were guilty of His pain. The Word of God in flesh behold, Now born to share our life mundane.
A meager shed for Him they found, And in a manger there He lay. What was He, and what was there ’round? Poor shepherds, cattle, sheep and hay. The poor had hailed Him, we are told, Before the rich would entertain. The Word of God in flesh behold, Now born to share our life mundane.
’Twas then, they say, appeared the kings, And jostled through the gathering dense. For Him they brought their offerings: The myrrh, and gold, and frankincense. The frankincense, and myrrh, and gold With rustic gifts He did retain. The Word of God in flesh behold, Now born to share our life mundane.
Raise now Thy hand, oh Child divine, And bless our homeland from the Height. By good advice and times benign, Support her strength with Thine own might: The hamlets, cities and the wold, Our houses, and our every gain. The Word of God in flesh behold, Now born to share our life mundane.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# United States v. Knox

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Knox."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Knox (102 U.S. 422)
* United States v. Knox (128 U.S. 230)
* United States v. Knox (396 U.S. 77)
# United States v. Knox (396 U.S. 77)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 77
United States v. Knox (396 U.S. 77)
Argued: Oct. 14, 1969. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1969
Mervyn Hamburg, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
J. Edwin Smith, Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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. Knox (128 U.S. 230)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
128 U.S. 230
United States v. Knox
Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard and F. P. Dewees, for the United states.
Geo. A. King, for appellee.
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. Knox (102 U.S. 422)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 422
United States v. Knox
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. Charles W. Hornor for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Charles Case, contra.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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. Kokinda

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Kennedy

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
497 U.S. 720
United States v. Kokinda
No. 88-2031 Argued: Feb. 26, 1990. --- Decided: June 27, 1990
Syllabus
Respondents, members of a political advocacy group, set up a table on a sidewalk near the entrance to a United States Post Office to solicit contributions, sell books and subscriptions to the organization's newspaper, and distribute literature on a variety of political issues. The sidewalk is the sole means by which customers may travel from the parking lot to the post office building and lies entirely on Postal Service property. When respondents refused to leave the premises, they were arrested and subsequently convicted by a Federal Magistrate of violating, inter alia, 39 CFR § 232.1(h)(1), which prohibits solicitation on postal premises. The District Court affirmed the convictions. It rejected respondents' argument that § 232.1(h)(1) violated the First Amendment, holding that the postal sidewalk was not a public forum and that the ban on solicitation is reasonable. The Court of Appeals reversed. Finding that the sidewalk is a public forum and analyzing the regulation as a time, place, and manner restriction, it determined that the Government has no significant interest in banning solicitation and that the regulation is not narrowly tailored to accomplish the asserted governmental interest.
Held: The judgment is reversed.
866 F.2d 699, (CA4 1989) reversed.
Justice O'CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice WHITE, and Justice SCALIA, concluded that the regulation, as applied, does not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 725-737.

## 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
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Wang Nai-pin

Mr. Wang Nai-pin
王遭域学恩甫
Mr. Wang Nai-pin was born at Hsin-ming Hsien, Fengtien province, in 1870. He was a Hsiu-tsai or Licentiate under the Ching Regime. He began his official career as a junior secretary in the Yamen of the Viceroy of the Three Eastern Provinces. The other positions he held under the Ching government were: Chief of Bureau for the Collection of Opium Tax; Director of the Native Customs at Sai-tsao-tai; Prefect of Chaoyang, Prefect of Cheng-teh Fu or Jehol; and Taotai of Jehol to which positions he was appointed in November 1911. After the First Revolution, Mr. Wang retired from public office and lived as a citizen for sometime. Marshal Chang Tso-lin, upon becoming Tuchan of Fengtien in 1916, appointed Mr. Wang to take charge of the repatriation of bandits in Fengtien. Having successfully completed the work, he was made a High Advisor to the Civil Governor of Fengtien. He was also advisor to Hsu Shih-chang as President of the Republic during 1918-1922. In May 1919 Mr. Wang was ​awarded the Second Class Wenfu and in January 1920 the Second Class Paokuang Chiaho. In February 1920 he was appointed Co-Director-General of the Government Economic Investigation Bureau. In August 1920 he became acting Minister of Agriculture and Commerce and also President of the Food Commission. In October 1920 he was given the Fifth Order of Merit. From May 1921 to December 1921 he was Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. In January 1922 he was appointed Director General of the Chinese Eastern Railway. However, he did not proceed to this post, and was relieved by Dr. C. C. Wang in March 1922.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Wang T'ien-p'ei

General Wang Tien-p'ei
王天培学植之
General Wang Tien-p'ei was born at Kishui, Kiangsi province in 1888, but he has lived in Tienchu, Kweichow, most of his life, so he considers himself to be a Kweichow man. He began school life in Tienchu attending the Higher Primary School from which he went to the Ministry Primary School in Kweiyang and afterwards to the Military Middle School in Wuchang. After graduating at the Paoting (Chihli) Military Academy he was at Wuchang in 1911 at the time of the First Revolution and was for a time the commandant in charge of military operations in Hankow, Hanyang and Wuchang. He also commanded the forts at Feng Hwang Shan. In 1912 General Wang was appointed Chief of the Secret Service in the cities of Kuchow and Liping, Kweichow, for the purpose of exterminating ​brigands. It was not till 1914, however, that his real career began. The Central Army headquarters gave him a commission in the Kweichow Army where he first served as a candidate in the First Regiment, afterwards he rose by degrees in his regiment till he became a Major after the fighting in Western Kiangsi in 1915. In 1917 he was given charge of the Model Battalion in the Kweichow Army; and for his zeal in fighting for the Constitution he was made Colonel of the Second Regiment in 1918. For the next two or three years he was fighting in several places in Szechwan and Kweichow and was raised to the rank of Brigadier in 1921, while engaged in Kwangsi. In 1922 he returned to Kweichow and was given the command of the First Kweichow Division, which command he still holds. In 1923 he was given the additional rank of Commandant (under Yuan Tzu-ming) for the relief of Szechwan and pacification of Kweichow.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Wang T'ing-chen

General Wang T'ing-chen
王廷植字子明
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Wang Shao-huan

Mr. Jack Ho
王少焕
(Wang Shao huan)
Mr. Jack Ho was born at Canton in 1899. His father, Mr. Ho Chu, had resided in the United States prior to his birth, having gone there when 13 years of age and worked up from a grocery store clerk to part owner and manager of Soy Kee and Company in Mott Street, New York, one of the oldest and most important Chinese concerns in America. The elder Ho on returning to China put into practice the American chain store idea, becoming manager of fourteen retail establishments. Mr. Ho received his early education in Canton, going to the United States at the age of 14. Eventually, he attended and graduated from New York University. Though urged to return to China, young Mr. Ho wished to try his fortunes in the United States and found his opportunity in the purchase of Vantine's Oriental store in New York. Under Mr. Ho's management, Vantine's has been moved to 39th Street, a few steps from Fifth Avenue, in the neighborhood of such renowned stores as Tiffany's and Altman's. Vantine's today enjoys a wide reputation for the quality and exclusiveness of its lines of Chinese, Japanese, Philippine, Japanese and Indian goods.
# Who's Who in China (3rd edition)/Wang Shao-lien

Mr. Wang Shoh-lian
王康字少荃
(Wang Shao-lien)
Mr. Wang Shoh-lian was born at Tientsin, in 1866. He was a Provincial graduate under the Ching regime, and was one of the earliest graduates of the Imperial Naval College, Tientsin. After his graduation, he was sent to England where he first studied in the navy and later devoted himself to law and politics. Upon his return from England he became a professor of the Tientsin Naval College. Later he was transferred to become the Dean of the Wu-Ch'eng College of Peking. During Yuan Shih-kii's office as Viceroy of Chihli, he held the post of Dean of the Peiyang University, Tientsin. In 1908, Mr. Wang was appointed Chairman of the Governing ​Board of the Chihli Educational Commission. Subsequently he became President of the Chihli Provincial Assembly. In 1909 Viceroy Yang Shih-hsiang of Chihli appointed him Special Deputy to investigate the Kaiping mine issue. In June 1912, the two mining companies, the Lanchow Mining and the Kai-ping Mining rere amalgamated into the Kailan Mining Administration. Mr. Wang became a member of the Board of Directors of the Chinese component of this joint enterprise. After the outbreak of the First Revolution in October 1911, the Chihli people organized the so-called “Peace-Preservation Society" and elected Mr. Wang as its first president. This Society under the direction of Mr. Wang rendered valuable service in maintaining the local order in Tientsin during the revolution. Upon the establishment of the Republican government in 1912, the society was dissolved. Then Mr. Wang devoted himself to educational activities exclusively, still holding his post in the Peiyang University. In March 1914 Yuan Shih-kai called a special conference to revise the Provisional Constitution. Mr. Wang was a member of this assembly representing Chibli. In April 1915 he was appointed a member of Yuan Shih-kai's State Council. Subsequently he became President of the Peiyang University. In 1916 he left the University to assume the post of assistant general manager of the Kailan Mining Administration, still serving as a member of the Board of Directors of the Chinese component.