OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Shelby Iron Company of New Jersey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 571
United States v. Shelby Iron Company of New Jersey
Argued: Jan. 13, 1926. --- Decided: April 11, 1927
The Attorney General and Mr. Gardner P. Lloyd, of New York City, for the United States.
Mr. E. H. Cabaniss, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.
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. Sheldon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
15 U.S. 119
United States v. Sheldon
THIS cause was argued by the Attorney General, for the United States, and by Mr. Hopkinson, for the defendant.
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 Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 37

Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅦ.—An Act to continue in force for a limited time the acts therein mentioned.
Acts relating to the law of Maryland for the appointment of a health officer; Ante, p. 393. Ante, p. 339. Lighthouses, &c. Ante, p. 275. The mitigating or remitting of penalties &c. accruing under the revenue laws; continued in force.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act, entitled “An act declaring the consent of Congress to an act of the state of Maryland passed the twenty-eighth of December one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three for the appointment of a health officer.” And also the act, entitled “An act supplementary to the act for the establishment and support of lighthouses, beacons, buoys and public piers,” so far as the same provides for defraying the necessary expense of supporting lighthouses, beacons, buoys and public piers and the stakeage of channels on the sea-coast. And also, so much of the act, intituled “An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the penalties and forfeitures accruing under the revenue laws in certain eases, and to make further provision for the payment of pensions to invalids,” as relates to the mitigating or remitting the penalties and forfeitures accruing under the revenue laws in certain cases, be and the same hereby are continued in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.
Approved, March 2, 1795.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 40

Chap. ⅩⅬ.—An Act relative to cessions of jurisdiction in places where lighthouses, beacons, buoys and public piers have been, or may hereafter be erected and fixed.
Cession of jurisdiction of places for lighthouses, &c. with reservation of execution of process sufficient.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That where cessions have been, or hereafter may be made, by any state, of the jurisdiction of places where lighthouses, beacons, buoys or public piers have been erected and fixed, or may, by law, be provided to be erected or fixed, with reservation, that process civil and criminal, issuing under the authority of such state, may be executed and served therein, such cessions shall be deemed sufficient, under the laws of the United States providing for the supporting or erecting of lighthouses, beacons, buoys and public piers.
Such reservation to be implied, where not expressly made.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That where any state hath made, or shall make a cession of jurisdiction, for the purposes aforesaid, without reservation, all process civil and criminal, issuing under the authority of such state, or the United States, may be served and executed within the places, the jurisdiction of which has been so ceded, in the same manner, as if no such cession had been made.
Approved, March 2, 1795.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 35

Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅤ.—An Act for allowing an additional compensation to the Judges of the districts of Rhode Island and Delaware.
$200 additional to judges of R. Island and Delaware districts, respectively. Ante, p. 128. 1801, ch. 29.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be allowed to the judges of the districts of Rhode Island and Delaware, each, two hundred dollars yearly, in addition to the compensation heretofore allowed, to commence on the first day of the present year, and to be paid at the treasury of the United States, in quarterly payments.
Approved, February 27, 1795.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 4

Chap. Ⅳ.—An Act authorizing a Loan of two million of Dollars.
President of United States to borrow $2,000,000.Section 1. Be it enacted by thee Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be empowered to borrow, on behalf of the United States, any sum not exceeding two million of dollars, at an interest not exceeding five per cent. per annum, reimbursable at the pleasure of the United States, to be applied to such public purposes, as are authorized by law, and to be repaid out of the duties on impost and tonnage, to the end of the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five.
Bank of United States may loan said sum.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Bank of the United States, and the said bank hereby is authorized and empowered to loan the said sum, or any part thereof.
Approved, December 18, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 41

Chap. ⅩⅬⅠ.—An Act relative to the passing of coasting vessels between Long Island and Rhode Island.
Privilege of coasting between R. Island and Long Island.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That coasting vessels going from Long Island in the state of New York to the state of Rhode Island, or from the state of Rhode Island to the said Long Island, shall have the same privileges as are allowed to vessels under the like circumstances going from a district in one state to a district in the same or an adjoining state.
Approved, March 2, 1795.
# Venice Preserv'd/Act II

ACT. II.
# Venice Preserv'd/Prologue

PROLOGUE.
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
# Venice Preserv'd/Epilogue

EPILOGUE,
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
# Venice Preserv'd/Act III

ACT III.
Enter Aquilina and her Maid.
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
The end of the third Act.
# Venice Preserv'd/Act IV

ACT IV.
Enter Jaffeir and Belvidera.
$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$
The end of the fourth Act.
# Venice Preserv'd/Personæ Dramatis

Personæ Dramatis.
| Duke of Venice, | Duke of Venice, | Duke of Venice, | Mr. D. Williams. |
| Prinli, Father to Belvidera, a Senatour, | Prinli, Father to Belvidera, a Senatour, | Prinli, Father to Belvidera, a Senatour, | Mr. Boman. |
| Antonio, A fine Speaker in the Senate, | Antonio, A fine Speaker in the Senate, | Antonio, A fine Speaker in the Senate, | Mr. Leigh. |
| Jaffeir, | Jaffeir, | Jaffeir, | Mr. Betterton. |
| Pierre, | Pierre, | Pierre, | Mr. Smith. |
| Renault, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, | Mr. Wilshire. |
| Bedamar, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, | Mr. Gillo. |
| Spinosa, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, | Mr. Percival. |
| Theodore, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Eliot, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Revillido, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Durand, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Mezzana, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Bramveil, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Ternon, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| Brabe, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Conspiratours, |
| 0 | | | |
| Belvidera, | | | Mrs. Barry. |
| Aquilina, | | | Mrs. Currer. |
| 0 | | | |
| Two Women, Attendants on Belvidera. |
| Two Women, Servants to Aquilina. |
| The Council of Ten. |
| Officer. |
| Guards. |
| Friar. |
| Executioner and Rable. |
# Venice Preserv'd/Act V

ACT V.
FINIS.
# Venner v. Great Northern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 24
Venner v. Great Northern Railway Company
Argued: January 20, 1908. --- Decided: February 24, 1908
Messrs. Abram J. Rose, George H. Yeaman, Alfred C. Pett e, and Stephen M. Yeaman for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 25-27 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Julius F. Workum for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 27-28 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Moody 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. Waters

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
133 U.S. 208
United States v. Waters

## 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. Ward Baking Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 327
United States v. Ward Baking Company
Argued: Feb. 18, 1964. --- Decided: March 9, 1964
William H. Orrick, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Davisson F. Dunlap, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellees.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG 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. Washington Post Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Order of the Court
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 943
United States v. Washington Post Co., et al.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 1885.
Treating the application for stay as a petition for certiorari, certiorari granted and case set for oral argument on Saturday, June 26, 1971, at 11 a.m. Briefs and records shall be filed simultaneously, the requirement for printing being waived. Portions of record or argument relating to matters claimed to affect national security may be filed in sealed form.
Pending argument and decision in this case, restraint imposed by Court of Appeals on the Washington Post Co. and its officers continued but limited to items specified in the Special Appendix filed on June 21, 1971, with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case in that court captioned United States v. New York Times Co., Docket 71-1616, decided June 23, 1971, and any such additional items as the United States may have specified with particularity by 5 p.m. today, June 25, 1971. Said Appendix as supplemented shall be served on respondent Washington Post Co. and filed in this Court at that time.
For purposes of argument case is consolidated with No. 1873, New York Times Co. v. United States, certiorari granted, supra.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL would not continue restraint, as limited or otherwise, and, treating application as a petition for certiorari, would deny certiorari.

## 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. Washington Post Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 943
United States v. Washington Post Company
Treating the application for stay as a petition for certiorari, the petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is granted and the case is set forth oral argument on Saturday, June 26, 1971, at 11 a. m. Briefs and records shall be filed simultaneously, the requirement for printing being waived. Portions of the record or argument relating to matters claimed to affect national security may be filed in sealed form.
Pending argument and decision in this case the restraining imposed by the Court of Appeals on the Washington Post and its officers, is continued but limited to items specified in the special Appendix filed on June 21, 1971, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case in that Court captioned United States v. New York Times Co., 444 F.2d 544, decided June 23, 1971, and any such additional items as the United States may have specified with particularity by 5:00 p. m. today, June 25, 1971. Said Appendix as supplemented shall be served on respondent Washington Post and filed in this Court at that time.
For purposes of argument the case is consolidated with No. 1873, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 942, 91 S.Ct. 2270, 29 L.Ed.2d 853, petition for certiorari this date granted.
Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL would not continue the restraint, as limited or otherwise, and, treating the application as a petition for certiorari, would deny the petition.

## 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. Walter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 15
United States v. Walter
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 3, 1923. --- Decided: Oct 22, 1923
Mr. Solicitor General James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. John W. Dodge, of Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 1/To the Honorable Joseph Story

TO THE
HONORABLE JOSEPH STORY,
ONE OF THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
My dear Sir:
In expressing to you my sincere acknowledgments for your permission to inscribe this work to you, I have afforded to me the opportunity to record my full sense of your high judicial character; of your deep and universal learning in the law; of the great value of your decisions on the important questions of constitutional and statute law which have come before the Supreme Court during your long and honorable presence in that tribunal, in the maintenance of those constitutional principles on which, only, our government can permanently rest; and of your arduous and successful labors to elevate and diffuse the science of jurisprudence in our country.
In other relations to you, I ask leave to declare my grateful feelings for your kind and affectionate friendship, and for the esteem with which you have always been pleased to regard me.
This work is indebted to you for its existence. It has been prepared according to a plan suggested by you; and in your approbation of the manner in which it has been edited by me, there is a perfect assurance that it will receive the sanction and support of all. This is a proud and complete title to the claims of the work to public patronage.
I have the honor to be, My dear Sir, Very respectfully and faithfully, Your obedient servant,
RICHARD PETERS.
Philadelphia, January, 1845.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 10

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts
** Public Acts of the Thirty-Second Congress
** Public Acts of the Thirty-Third Congress
* Private Acts
** List of Private Acts
** Private Acts of the Thirty-Second Congress
** Private Acts of the Thirty-Third Congress
* Treaties
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 107

    Includes the cover page, table of contents, list of bills enacted into public law, list of bills enacted into private laws, list of public laws, list of private laws, list of concurrent resolutions, and the list of proclamations.
   * Popular Name Index
   * Subject Index
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 11

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts
** Public Acts of the Thirty-Fourth Congress
** Public Acts of the Thirty-Fifth Congress
* Joint Resolutions of the Thirty-Fifth Congress
* Private Acts
** List of Private Acts
** Private Acts of the Thirty-Fourth Congress
** Private Acts of the Thirty-Fifth Congress
* Treaties
* Appendix
* Index
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 109

    Includes the cover page, table of contents, list of bills enacted into public law, list of bills enacted into private laws, list of public laws, list of private laws, list of concurrent resolutions, and the list of proclamations.
   * Popular Name Index
   * Subject Index
# United States v. Louisiana (354 U.S. 515)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
354 U.S. 515
United States v. Louisiana (354 U.S. 515)
Argued: April 8, 1957. --- Decided: June 24, 1957
The Court has before it the motions of the United States for judgment and of Louisiana for leave to take depositions. As a result of its consideration of these matters, including the representations made by the State of Texas in its amicus curiae brief, the Court is of the opinion that the issues in this litigation are so related to the possible interests of Texas, and other States situated on the Gulf of Mexico, in the subject matter of this suit, that the just, orderly, and effective determination of such issues requires that they be adjudicated in a proceeding in which all the interested parties are before the Court.
Accordingly, to that end, the Court, acting pursuant to Rules 9(2) and (6) of its Revised Rules, Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. and the general equity powers of the Court, grants leave to each of the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas to intervene in this suit within 60 days from the date of this opinion, with leave to the United States, within 60 days thereafter, to file an amended or supplemental complaint adding as parties to this suit any of such States as shall not have so intervened. The bringing in of such additional parties shall be without prejudice to the present motions of the United States and Louisiana, subject only to shch terms as justice may require vis-a -vis the additional parties. Meanwhile such motions are continued.
Motions continued.
The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice CLARK 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. Louisiana (355 U.S. 945)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 945
United States v. Louisiana (355 U.S. 945)
Solicitor General Rankin, for the United States.
Messrs. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., W. Scott Wilkinson, Edward M. Carmouche, John L. Madden, Bailey Walsh, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., Hugh M. Wilkinson, Victor A. Sanchse and Marc Dupuy, Jr., for State of Louisiana; Price Daniel, Governor, Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., James N. Ludlum, First Asst. Atty. Gen., James H. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., James P. Hart and J. Chrys Dougherty, for State of Texas; Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., and John H. Price, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Mississippi; John Patterson, Atty. Gen., William G. O'Rear, Gordon Madison, Asst. Attys. Gen., and E. K. Hanby, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Alabama; and Spessard L. Holland, United States Senator, Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., J. Robert McClure, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Fred M. Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Kelly, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Florida, defendants.

## 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. Louisiana (355 U.S. 945)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 945
United States v. Louisiana (355 U.S. 945)
This case is set for argument on Monday, October 13, 1958, on the motion of the United States for judgment, the answers thereto, and on the motion to dismiss the cross-bill of the State of Alabama. Counsel are directed to submit a proposed schedule within thirty days for the filing of briefs, and the order of an allotment of time for oral argument. Such schedule shall provide that the briefs of all of the parties be on file on or before September 15, 1958.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of the applications.

## 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. Louisiana (382 U.S. 288)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 288
United States v. Louisiana (382 U.S. 288)

## 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