OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 313

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 1644th meeting, on 28 February 1972
The Security Council,
Demands that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon forthwith and withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 308

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1626th meeting, on 19 January 1972
The Security Council,
Having considered, at the invitation of the General Assembly, the request of the Organization of African Unity concerning the holding of meetings of the Security Council in an African capital (General Assembly resolution 2863 (XXVI), paragraph 2),
Recalling the decisions taken at its 1625th meeting on 11 January 1972,
Recalling in particular the decision to accede in principle to the request of the Organization of African Unity,
Taking note with gratitude of the offers by the Government of Ethiopia, Guinea, Senegal and Zambia to act as hosts to the Security Council in the respective capitals,
Having considered the report of the Committee on Council Meetings away from Headquarters,
Taking note in particular of the statements concerning cost estimates reproduced in annex I of the Committee's report,
Bearing in mind the recommendations submitted by the Committee in chapter VI of its report,
1. Decides to hold meetings in Addis Ababa, beginning of Friday, 28 January, and ending no later than Friday, 4 February 1972, devoted to the item entitled "Consideration of questions relating to Africa of which the Security Council is currently seized and implementation of the Council's relevant resolutions";
2. Expresses its gratitude to the Government of Ethiopia for its stated readiness to act as host to the Security Council meetings and to provide certain facilities without cost to the United Nations;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to enter into immediate negotiations with the Government of Ethiopia with a view to concluding a conference agreement along the lines set out in annex II of the Committee's report.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 315

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (China) by the Security Council at its 1646th meeting, on 15 June 1972
The Security Council,
Noting from the report of the Secretary-General of 6 May 1972 that in the present circumstances the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus is still needed if peace is to be maintained in the island,
Noting that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that in view of the prevailing conditions in the island it is necessary to continue the Force beyond 15 June 1972,
Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,
1. Reaffirms its resolutions 186 (1964) of 4 March, 187 (1964) of 13 March, 192 (1964) of 20 June, 193 (1964) of 9 August, 194 (1964) of 25 September and 198 (1964) of 18 December 1964, 201 (1965) of 19 March, 206 (1965) of 15 June, 207 (1965) of 10 August and 219 (1965) of 17 December 1965, 220 (1966) of 16 March, 222 (1966) of 16 June and 231 (1966) of 15 December 1966, 238 (1967) of 19 June and 244 (1967) of 22 December 1967, 247 (1968) of 18 March, 254 (1968) of 18 June 1968 and 261 (1968) of 10 December 1968, 266 (1969) of 10 June 1969 and 274 (1969) of 11 December 1969, 281 (1970) of 9 June 1970 and 291 (1970) of 10 December 1970, and 293 (1971) of 26 May, and 305 (1971) of 13 December 1971, and the consensus expressed by the President at the 1143rd meeting on 11 August 1964 and the 1383rd meeting on 25 November 1967;
2. Urges the parties concerned to act with the utmost restraint and to continue and accelerate determined co-operative efforts to achieve the objectives of the Security Council, by availing themselves in a constructive manner of the present auspicious climate and opportunities;
3. Extends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force, established under Security Council resolution 186 (1964), for a further period ending 15 December 1972, in the expectation that by then sufficient progress towards a final solution will make possible a withdrawal or substantial reduction of the Force.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 309

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by 14 votes to none by the Security Council at its 1638th meeting, on 4 February 1972
The Security Council,
Having examined further the question of Namibia, and without prejudice to other resolutions adopted by the Security Council on this matter,
Recognizing the special responsibility and obligation of the United Nations towards the people and Territory of Namibia,
Reaffirming once again the inalienable and imprescriptible right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence,
Reaffirming also the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia,
1. Invites the Secretary-General, in consultation and close co-operation with a group of the Security Council, composed of the representatives of Argentina, Somalia and Yugoslavia, to initiate as soon as possible contacts with all parties concerned, with a view to establishing the necessary conditions so as to enable the people of Namibia, freely and with strict regard to the principle of human equality, to exercise their right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
2. Calls upon the Government of South Africa to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution not later than 31 July 1972.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 31

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 194th meeting, by 8 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Poland, Syria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), on 25 August 1947
The Security Council,
Resolves to tender its good offices to the parties in order to assist in the pacific settlement of their dispute in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of its resolution 27 (1947) of 1 August 1947. The Council expresses its readiness, if the parties so request, to assist in the settlement through a committee of the Council consisting of three members of the Council, each party selecting one and the third to be designated by the two so selected.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Martinez

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Martinez."
* 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. Martinez (184 U.S. 441)
* United States v. Martinez (195 U.S. 469)
# United States v. Martinez (195 U.S. 469)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglass White
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 469
United States v. Martinez
Argued: October 21, 24, 1904. --- Decided: December 5, 1904
This action was brought in the court of claims on October 24, 1891, to recover damages against the United States and the Utetribe of Indians, in the sum of $1,400, the value of certain sheep alleged to have been taken and destroyed or used in June, 1873, by the said Indians. The petition was filed under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891, entitled "An act to Provide for the Adjudication and Payment of Claims Arising from Indian Depredations." 26 Stat. at L. 851, chap. 538 U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 758. On February 5, 1902, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States answered the allegations of the petition by a general denial. On November 4, 1902, the claimant filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition, charging the depredation to have been committed by the Kiowa Indians, which motion was allowed, and upon the same day the amended petition was filed. On November 5, 1902, the Assistant Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the United States and the Kiowa Indians, filed a plea to the amended petition, setting up that no action had been commenced against the Kiowa Indians within three years after the passage of the act of March 3, 1891. On November 11, 1902, this plea in bar was overruled, and, upon the general issue being pleaded and trial had, the court found as a matter of fact: At the time of the depredation the claimant's decedent was a citizen of the United States. In June, 1873, in Mora county, New Mexico, Indians belonging to the Kiowa tribe took and drove away property of the kind and character described in the petition, the property of claimant's decedent, which was reasonably worth the sum of $690. At the time of said depredation defendant Indians were in amity with the United States.
As a conclusion of law, the majority of the court decided that the claimant recover a judgment against the United States and the Kiowa Indians, in the sum of $690.
The defendants appealed to this court.
Mr. Lincoln B. Smith, by special leave, and Assistant Attorney General Thompson for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 470 intentionally omitted]
Mr. William H. Robeson for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 471 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day 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. Marvin

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Marvin."
* 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. Marvin (44 U.S. 620)
* United States v. Marvin (212 U.S. 275)
# United States v. Chase National Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 485
United States v. Chase National Bank
Argued: Jan. 14 and 15, 1920. --- Decided: April 19, 1920
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Spellacy, for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 485-488 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Henry Root Stern and Charles E. Rushmore, both of New York City, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 488-490 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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. Chase (245 U.S. 89)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 89
United States v. Chase (245 U.S. 89)
Argued: Oct. 2, 1917. --- Decided: Nov 5, 1917
[Syllabus from pages 89-91 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Hiram Chase, of Pender, Neb., and Mr. Thomas L. Sloan, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc./Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice STEWART, Mr. Justice WHITE, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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. Chase (135 U.S. 255)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
135 U.S. 255
United States v. Chase
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury.
Warren O. Kyle, for defendant.
LAMAR, 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. Chase

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Chase."
* 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. Chase (135 U.S. 255)
* United States v. Chase (245 U.S. 89)
See also Chase v. United States.
# United States v. Lanza

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 377
United States v. Lanza
Argued: Nov. 23, 1922. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1922
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Mr. John F. Dore, of Seattle, Wash., for defendants in error.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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. Lap Ene

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
84 U.S. 601
United States v. Lap Ene
APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being thus:
'On the 20th of February, 1862, while the whole State of Louisiana, including the city of New Orleans, was in the possession and under the control of the rebels, Lap ene & Ferr e, a mercantile firm in the said city, sent their travelling clerk from the said city of New Orleans into certain parishes in the interior of the State, to collect moneys due to the firm there, and gave him authority to purchase sugar and cotton for the firm.
'In March or April, 1862, they requested one Avegno, who was then going from New Orleans to the said parishes, to remit to their said clerk the sum of $5000, and to assist the said clerk in the business of buying sugar and cotton. Avegno agreed to do this; and, in pursuance of his agreement, did deliver the said sum to the said clerk, in the said interior parishes, then in the possession and under the control of the rebels.
'While the said clerk and the said Avegno were in the said parishes, on the 27th day of April, 1862, the city of New Orleans was captured by the United States forces, and thenceforth through the whole term of the rebellion was held by those forces.
'After the said capture, the said clerk with the said sum of $5000 and other moneys collected by him in the said parishes, which parishes were, when the purchases were made, in the possession and under the control of the rebels, bought in different lots a quantity of cotton, and left it at the places where it was purchased.
'He returned from those parishes to New Orleans on the 14th of July, 1862. There was no evidence of any communication having been had between him and Lap ene & Ferr e, in relation to the said purchases of cotton, between the capture of New Orleans and his own return to that city, except the aforesaid delivery to him by Avegno of the said $5000.
'The cotton so purchased remained at the points at which it was purchased until April and May, 1863, when it was captured by military forces of the United States and shipped to and received by the Federal authorities at New Orleans.'
Hereupon Lap ene & Ferr e filed a petition in the Court of Claims, claiming the cotton or the proceeds of it as their property; and the Court of Claims decreed that it belonged to them. From this decree the United States took the present appeal.
Mr. S. F. Phillips, Solicitor-General, for the appellant, relied on Griswold v. Waddington, 1 and Montgomery v. United States.
Mr. W. P. Clarke, contra, sought to distinguish the case from the cases mentioned, and relied on United States v. Anderson.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 15 Id. 395.
* ↑ 9 Id. 56.
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. Larkin (59 U.S. 557)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Campbell
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 557
United States v. Larkin
THIS was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Cushing, (attorney-general,) for the United States, and by Mr. Lawrence, with whom was Mr. Goold, for the appellees.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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. Larkin

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Larkin."
* 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. Larkin (59 U.S. 557)
* United States v. Larkin (208 U.S. 333)
# United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 424
United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc.
Argued: March 23, 1966. --- Decided: June 6, 1966
Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
David Fromson, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
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. Antikamnia Chemical Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 654
United States v. Antikamnia Chemical Company
Argued: December 9, 1913. --- Decided: January 5, 1914
Solicitor General Davis and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey for plaintiff in error and appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 655-657 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Daniel W. Baker, Wilton J. Lambert, Joseph C. Sheehy, and Frank J. Hogan for defendant in error and appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 657-659 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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. Ansonia Brass & Copper Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
218 U.S. 452
United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Company
Argued: October 18, 1910. --- Decided: November 28, 1910
Mr. Lunsford L. Lewis and Assistant Attorney General Harr for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 453-456 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Eppa Hunton, Jr., and R. G. Bickford for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 456-461 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day 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