OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Storer Broadcasting Company

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Douglas
    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
351 U.S. 192
United States v. Storer Broadcasting Company
Argued: Feb. 28, 29, 1956. --- Decided: May 21, 1956
Mr.Warren E. Baker, for petitioner.
Mr. Albert R. Connelly, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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. Storrs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 652
United States v. Storrs
Argued: and Submitted Nov. 24, 1926. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1926
The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for the United States.
Messrs. Mahlon E. Wilson, Dan B. Shields, and Albert R. Barnes, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants 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 v. Humphries

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 277
United States v. Humphries
Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BREWER 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. Hunt (105 U.S. 183)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 183
United States v. Hunt
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. William L. Nugent for the defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS 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. Hulley/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 66
United States v. Hulley
The petition for writ of certiorari in this case is granted and judgment reversed. See United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53; United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U.S. 361, 73 S.Ct. 701, 97 L.Ed. 1071; United States v. New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 74 S.Ct. 367, 98 L.Ed. 520; United States v. Acri, 348 U.S. 211, 75 S.Ct. 239, 99 L.Ed. 264; United States v. Liverpool & London Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 215, 75 S.Ct. 247, 99 L.Ed. 268; United States v. Scovil, 348 U.S. 218, 75 S.Ct. 244, 99 L.Ed. 271; United States v. Colotta, 350 U.S. 808, 76 S.Ct. 82, 100 L.Ed. 725; United States v. White Bear Briewing Co., 350 U.S. 1010, 76 S.Ct. 646, 100 L.Ed. 871; United States v. Vorreiter, 355 U.S. 15, 78 S.Ct. 19, 2 L.Ed.2d 23.

## 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. Hunt (81 U.S. 550)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 550
United States v. Hunt
Our duty in construing acts of Congress is to give the meaning to words which Congress obviously intended. It may be that in the strict sense of the military term the rank of brigadier and brevet brigadier is the same, but it is well known that practically they are by no means identical, and that the position of the former is, in many respects, better than that of the latter. Brevet rank is conferred, in theory at least, for special and meritorious services by commission from the President, under authority of an act of Congress. It does not entitle the holder to corresponding pay or command, except under special circumstances defined by law. When an officer holding rank by brevet receives a regular commission of the same grade, he is said to be promoted and to become a full officer of that rank. These circumstances make it evident that there is a difference of military position between an officer by brevet and an officer by regular commission, and that the one is less eligible than the other. And Congress seems to have referred to this distinction of position rather than to technical rank in the provision under consideration. If they did not, why employ the word brevet at all? Why use the term brevet brigadier when it was so easy to say brigadier, and thus avoid all ambiguity? We think that Congress had in view the distinction between brevet rank and regular rank, to which we have referred, and regarded the latter as above the former. The practice of the Department of War, as we understand, and of the accounting officers, has been in accordance with this view, and seems to us correct.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.

## 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. Hunt

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Hunt."
* 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. Hunt (81 U.S. 550)
* United States v. Hunt (105 U.S. 183)
See also Hunt v. United States.
# United States v. Hulley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 66
United States v. Hulley
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Messrs. A. F. Prescott and George F. Lynch, for the United States.
Messrs. H. Leighton Thomas and Ronald A. Capone, for respondents.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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. Humphries/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 277
United States v. Humphries
This case is so nearly like the case just decided (U.S. v. Mock, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 848) that it is unnecessary to refer to the facts in detail. There also appears in this a further matter of error, in that the court, over the objections of the government, permitted the defendants to introduce evidence that their mill was not profitable. Certainly, whether they made money or not does not affect the right of the government to recover, or the measure of recovery.
The judgment in this case will also be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

## 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
# For Once, Then, Something

* "For Once, Then, Something" in New Hampshire, a Poem with Notes and Grace Notes (1923)
* "For Once, Then, Something" in Miscellaneous Poems to 1920 (1999)
# For Lucius Murena

* related portals: Speeches.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
from Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Harper & Bros. (1856).
1. What I entreated of the immortal gods, O judges, according to the manners and institutions of our ancestors, on that day when, after taking the auspices in the comitia centuriata, I declared Lucius Murena to have been elected consul,--namely, that that fact might turn out gloriously and happily for me and for my office, and for the Roman nation and people,--that same thing do I now pray for from the same immortal gods, that the consulship may be obtained by that same man with safety, and that your inclinations and opinions may agree with the wishes and suffrages of the Roman people, and that that fact may bring to you and to the Roman people peace, tranquillity, ease, and unanimity. And if that solemn prayer of the comitia, consecrated under the auspices of the consul, has as much power and holy influence as the dignity of the republic requires, I pray also that the matter may turn out happily, fortunately, and prosperously to those men to whom the consulship was given when I presided over the election.
2. And as this is the case, O judges, and as all the power of the immortal gods is either transferred to, or at all events is shared with you, the same consul recommends him now to your good faith who before recommended him to the immortal gods; so that he being both declared consul and being defended by the voice of the same man, may uphold the kindness of the Roman people to your safety and that of all the citizens. And since in this duty which I have undertaken the zeal of my defence has been found fault with by the accusers, and even the very fact of my having undertaken the cause at all, before I begin to say anything of Lucius Murena, I will say a few words on behalf of myself; not because at this time the defence of my duty seems to me more important than that of his safety, but in order that, when what I have done is approved of by you, I may be able with the greater authority to repel the attacks of his enemies upon his honour, his reputation, and all his fortunes.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Gaucho

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Gaucho."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* "The Gaucho" (1858), a short story published in The Atlantic Monthly
* The Gaucho (1927), a film starring Douglas Fairbanks, directed by Frank Richard Jones
# Gauthier v. Morrison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 452
Gauthier v. Morrison
Argued: December 19, 1913. --- Decided: February 24, 1914
Messrs. Fred B. Morrill, W. C. Jones, L. F. Chester, and John J. Skuse for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Reese H. Voorhees for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 453-456 intentionally omitted]
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
# Gates v. Goodloe

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 612
Gates v. Goodloe
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Luke W. Finlay for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Joseph B. Heiskell, contra.
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
# Gatewood v. North Carolina

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 531
Gatewood v. North Carolina
Argued: November 16, 1906. --- Decided: December 24, 1906
Messrs. Robert W. Winston and Victor S. Bryant for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 532-533 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter Clark, Jr. (by spec
ial leave) and Robert D. Gilmer for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 534 intentionally omitted]
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
# Floor Statement of Senator Elizabeth Dole on that would prevent illegals convicted of DWI from receiving legal status

Delivered on 6 June 2007.
Madam President, I am very concerned that amendments to this bill are being limited because there are many issues that deserve attention in this debate. For instance, in my home state of North Carolina, we have had a number of fatal automobile accidents caused by an intoxicated person who was in the United States illegally. Sadly, just yesterday morning on Interstate 40 near Raleigh, a man was killed on his way to work when his vehicle was struck by an SUV barreling across the median. The SUV driver, according to initial news reports, is an illegal alien, who now faces a number of criminal charges, including DWI.
In several of these incidents, the illegal alien has a record of DWI, sometimes repeated offenses, but has been caught and released. Just this past March, in Johnston County, North Carolina, a 9-year-old boy and his father lost their lives in an accident caused by an intoxicated driver who had been convicted twice of drunken driving and had an outstanding warrant stemming from a probation violation…and he was in the United States illegally. Another tragic case was the death of Scott Gardner, a Gaston County school teacher, who was killed in 2005 by a drunk driver – a driver who was an illegal alien with five previous DWI charges. I want to thank my colleague Richard Burr who introduced the Scott Gardner Act to deal with this serious issue, and on the House side, my good friend Sue Myrick has been a true leader on this front.
I hear from many North Carolinians who ask me: What is Washington doing to stop this from happening? When are we going to take action to make our communities safer?
And such senseless tragedies are not unique to North Carolina. Automobile accidents caused by intoxicated illegal aliens are occurring around the nation – too often killing innocent people who are just going about their daily lives, or leaving the victims with crippling, disabling injuries.
It is a privilege, not a right, for an immigrant to receive legal status to live in the United States of America. My amendment would ensure that this privilege is not granted to an illegal alien with a DWI conviction.
No question, our DWI laws should be vigorously enforced, regardless of the offender’s immigration or citizenship status.
Madam President, my amendment addresses an all too prevalent problem and should be considered. And there are a number of other amendments that deserve a place in this debate. The bill we are considering would have enormous ramifications for nearly every American…as well as those who want to work in this country or become American citizens. We must do our due diligence and not rush this bill through. The majority in this body must not stifle the voice of the minority members. More amendments must be considered.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 13

Chap. XIII.—An Act to change the name of the Collection District of Dighton, in the State of Massachusetts, to Fall River, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of April next, the said District,Name of district changed; made port of entry for vessels from Cape of Good Hope, &c. now known and called by the name of the Dighton District, shall be called the District of Fall River, and as such shall be made a port of entry for vessels arriving from the Cape of Good Hope, ​and from places beyond the same, any law now in force to the contrary notwithstanding.
Approved, February 13, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 15

Chap. XV.—An Act to suspend certain provisoes of “An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,” approved the fourteenth day of July, eighteen hundred and thirty-two.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Provisoes of Act July 14, 1832, ch. 227, suspended. That the provisoes of the tenth and twelfth clauses of the second section of the act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports, passed July the fourteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, be, and the same are hereby, suspended, until the close of the next session of Congress.
Approved, March 1, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 14

Chap. XIV.—An Act to amend an act, entitled “An act to establish branches of the mint of the United States,” passed the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five.
Act of March 3, 1835, ch. 39. Act of Jan. 18, 1837, ch. 3. Officers of branch mints at New Orleans, Charlotte and Dahlonega. Their salaries.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the officers of the branch mint at New Orleans shall be one superintendent, one treasurer, one assayer, one melter and refiner, and one coiner; and that the officers of the branch mints, at Charlotte and Dahlonega, severally, shall be one superintendent, who shall also perform the duties of treasurer; one assayer, who shall also perform the duties of melter and refiner; and one coiner; and the annual salaries of the said officers shall be as follows: for the branch at New Orleans, to the superintendent, two thousand five hundred dollars; to the treasurer, the assayer, the melter and refiner, and the coiner, each, two thousand dollars; for the branches at Charlotte and at Dahlonega, to the superintendent, two thousand dollars; and to the assayer and the coiner, each, fifteen hundred dollars.
Part of act of 3d March, 1835, ch. 39, repealed.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of the act entitled “An act, to establish branches of the mint of the United States,” approved the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, as is inconsistent with the provisions of this act, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Approved, February 13, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 16

Chap. XVI.—An Act to extend the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States, for the district of Arkansas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,To have the same jurisdiction and power as the several district courts, U. S. Act of March 30, 1802, ch. 13. That the district court of the United States for the district of Arkansas shall have the same jurisdiction and power in all respects whatever that was given to the several district courts of the United States, by an act of Congress, approved March thirtieth, eighteen hundred and two, entitled “An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers,” or by any subsequent acts of Congress, concerning crimes, offences, or misdemeanors, which may be committed against the laws of the United States, in any town, settlement, or territory, belonging to any Indian tribe, in amity with the United States, of which any other district court of the United States may have jurisdiction.
Approved, March 1, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 21

Chap. XXI.—An Act to provide for the enlistment of boys for the naval service, and to extend the term of the enlistment of seamen.
1845, ch. 17. Boys may be enlisted.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful to enlist boys for the navy, with the consent of their parents or guardians, not being under thirteen, nor over eighteen years of age, to serve until they shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years; and it shall be lawful to enlist other persons for the navy,Other persons may be enlisted for five years. So much of act 15th May, 1820, ch. 132, as is inconsistent with this act, repealed. to serve for a period not exceeding five years, unless sooner discharged by direction of the President of the United States; and so much of an act entitled “An act to amend the act entitled ‘An act to amend the act authorizing the employment of an additional naval force,’” approved fifteenth May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, as is inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall be, and is hereby, repealed.
Any person whose time expires while on foreign service, to be sent to U. States, &c. 1845, ch. 77, § 9.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when the time of service of any person enlisted for the navy, shall expire, while he is on board any of the public vessels of the United States, employed on foreign service, it shall be the duty of the commanding officer of the fleet, squadron, or vessel, in which such person may be, to send him to the United States in some public or other vessel, unless his detention shall be essential to the public interests, in which case the said officer may detain him until the vessel in which he shall be serving shall return to the United States; and it shall be the duty of said officer, immediately to make report to the Navy Department, of such detention and the causes thereof.
Persons detained to the subject to laws, &c., of navy. Those who re-enlist to receive additional pay.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That such persons as may be detained after the expiration of their enlistment, under the next preceding section of this act, shall be subject, in all respects, to the laws and regulations for the government of the navy, until their return to the United States, and all such persons as shall be so detained, and all such as shall voluntarily re-enlist to serve until the return of the vessel in which they shall be serving, and their regular discharge therefrom in the United States, shall, while so detained and while so serving under their re-enlistment, receive an addition of one-fourth to their former pay.
Approved, March 2, 1837.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 19

Chap. XIX.—An Act respecting discriminating duties upon Dutch and Belgian vessels and their cargoes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,The same duties to be levied on Belgian vessels and their cargoes as are now levied on Dutch vessels and their cargoes. Act of Jan. 7, 1824, ch. 4. That the same duties shall be levied and collected in the ports of the United States, on Belgian vessels and their cargoes, which are now levied and collected on Dutch vessels and their cargoes; but nothing in this act contained shall be construed to prevent the President of the United States from enforcing, whensoever he may deem proper, both against the Dutch and Belgian vessels, or either of them, and their cargoes, the provisions of the third section of the act entitled “An act concerning discriminating duties of tonnage and imposts,” approved the seventh day of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four.
Approved, March 2, 1837.