OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 10

Chap. X.—An Act requiring one of the judges of the circuit court for the District of Columbia hereafter to reside in Alexandria.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,In case of vacancy of one of the present judges, his successor to reside in Alexandria. That whenever hereafter a vacancy shall occur in the circuit court of the District of Columbia, by reason of the death, resignation, or removal, of any one of the judges nor composing said circuit court, the vacancy so occasioned shall be supplied by the appointment of some suitable person, whose duty it shall be to reside within the town of Alexandria, in said District of Columbia, during his continuance in office;Afterwards one of the judges always to reside there. The judges may make an exchange of residence between them to that end. and after the happening of such vacancy, as is herein before contemplated, one of the judges of the said circuit court shall thenceforth always be required to reside in the said town of Alexandria: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent, at any time, an exchange of residence between the judges of said court, should they think proper to make such exchange, so that some of said judges shall at all times, after the next appointment hereafter to be made of a judge of said court, reside in the said town of Alexandria.
Approved, April 4, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 100

Chap. C.—An Act supplementary to an act entitled “An act to regulate arrest on mesne process in the District of Columbia,” approved August first, eighteen hundred and forty-two.
Act of Aug. 1, 1842, ch. 108. 1853, ch. 40. No person to be held to bail or imprisoned in a civil action, when the debt is less than $50, &c. 1845, ch. 2. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no person shall hereafter be held to bail or imprisoned in any civil action in the District of Columbia, in any case where the debt or claim, exclusive of interest and costs, is less than fifty dollars, and in cases where he may have been, or shall hereafter be, held to bail under the act, to which this is a supplement; and that every person who at the time of the passage of this act, shall be held in prison or prison bounds, in any civil action, except in the cases hereinbefore mentioned, shall thereupon be immediately discharged: Provided, That if any plaintiff in any civil action after judgment shall have been obtained by him or her, shall make oath according to law, that the defendant or defendants has or have conveyed away, lessened, or disposed of his or their property, rights, or credits, or is, or are about to remove, or hath or have removed, his or their property from this District, as he or she believes ​with intent thereby to hinder or delay the recovery or payment of his debts, the clerk of the court of the county in which such judgment shall have been rendered, shall thereupon issue a capias ad satisfaciendum in the same manner as though this act had not been passed: and upon the arrest of any such defendant or defendants under such capias ad satisfaciendum, he or they may be brought by habeas corpus before the court of such county, if in term time, and before one of the judges thereof in vacation, and may call upon the plaintiff or plaintiffs, to show cause why he or they, the said defendant or defendants shall not be discharged from said imprisonment; and upon such notice, either party may demand a trial by jury; and thereupon the said court or judge shall direct an issue or issues to be framed upon the affidavit so filed, and shall cause a jury to be impannelled and sworn to try such issue or issues, and if the finding of the jury upon such issue or issues shall be for the plaintiff, such defendant or defendants shall be thereupon remanded to prison, and be dealt with as though this act had not been passed:Proviso. And provided further, that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the custody or imprisonment of any female person on civil process, nor to any non-resident for any debt contracted out of the District of Columbia:Proviso. Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall prevent the execution of process already in the hands of the marshal and not yet executed.
Approved, June 17, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 103

Chap. CIII.—An Act supplementary to the act entitled “An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers,” passed thirtieth June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four.
1834, ch. 161. Courts of Arkansas to have jurisdiction over certain territory.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the courts of the United States in and for the district of Arkansas, be, and they hereby are, vested with the same power and jurisdiction, to hear, try, determine and punish all crimes committed within that Indian country designated in the twenty-fourth section of the act to which this is a supplement, and therein and thereby annexed to the Territory of Arkansas, as were vested in the courts of the United States for said Territory before the same became a State. And that for the sole purpose of carrying this act into effect, all that Indian country heretofore annexed by the said twenty-fourth section of the act aforesaid to the Territory of Arkansas, be and the same hereby is annexed to the State of Arkansas.
Approved, June 17, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Resolution 7

No. 7. Joint Resolution relating to patents for bounty lands.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Mode of issuing patents to the heirs of persons entitled to bounty lands. That in all cases where an officer or soldier of the revolutionary war, or a soldier of the last war, was entitled to bounty land, has died before obtaining a patent for the land, and where application is made by a part only of the heirs of such deceased officer or soldier for such bounty land, it shall be the duty of the proper officers of the War Department to issue the warrant or patent in the name of the heirs of such deceased officer or soldier, without specifying each; and the patent so issued in the name of the heirs, generally, shall inure to the benefit of the whole, in such portions as they are severally entitled to by the laws of descent in the State or Territory where the officer or soldier belonged at the time of his death.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 1

Chapter I.—An Act to supply a deficiency in the appropriation for the fiscal year ending the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and forty-four, for the relief and protection of American seamen.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Relief of American seamen. That the sum of forty thousand five hundred dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any unappropriated money in the Treasury for the relief and protection of American seamen, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the act supplementary to the act concerning consuls and vice-consuls and for the further protection of American seamen,1803, ch. 9. passed the twenty-eighth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and three.
Approved, January 22, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 104

Chap. CIV.—An Act explanatory of the Treaty made with the Chippewa Indians at Saganaw, the twenty-third of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,1st and 2d articles of treaty with Chippewas of Jan. 23, 1838, how to be construed. That the first and second articles in the treaty made with the Chippewa Indians on the twenty-third of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, shall be so construed as to prevent the sales of land ceded by said treaty for a less sum than two dollars and fifty cents per acre from and after the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three; and that ​the minimum price of said lands, from and after that day, shall be two dollars and fifty cents per acre.
Approved, June 17, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Resolution 6

No. 6. Joint Resolution for continuing an additional clerk in the Second Auditor’s office.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Clerk authorized by act 26th August 1842, ch. 202, continued. That the provision contained in the act of twenty-sixth August, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, “legalizing and making appropriations for such necessary objects as have been usually included in the general appropriation bills without other authority of law, and for other purposes,” for one additional clerk in the Second Auditor’s office at one thousand dollars, be, and the same is, continued until the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 102

Chap. CII.—An Act to continue the pensions of certain widows.
Act of March 3, 1843, ch. 102, granting pensions to widows, extended for 4 years from March 4, 1844.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act granting pensions to the widows of certain revolutionary soldiers, approved the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, be and the same is hereby revived and extended from and during the term of four years from and after the fourth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, to have the same effect as if said act had been a grant of pensions for five years instead of one year from and after the fourth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three.
Widows entitled to benefit of act of July 7, 1838, ch. 189, to have benefit of this.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That such widows as have been or shall be admitted by special acts of Congress to the benefit of the pension act, approved the seventh day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, or to the benefit of the act hereby revived and extended, shall be entitled and shall be admitted to the benefit of this act, subject, however, to the rules, limitations, and conditions in and by said acts prescribed.
Approved, June 17, 1844.
# United States v. Carolene Products Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case dealt with a federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. The defendant argued that the law was unconstitutional on both Commerce Clause and due process grounds. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Butler
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 144
United States v. Carolene Products Company
Argued: April 6, 1938. --- Decided: April 25, 1938
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Brien McMahon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Mr. George N. Murdock, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 475
United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 16, 1942. --- Decided: March 2, 1942
[Syllabus from pages 475-477 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. Stanley Payne, of Washington, D.C., for appellant the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., Chas. Fahy, Sol. Gen., Thurman Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Frank Coleman and Smith R. Brittingham, Jr., both of Washington, D.C., for appellant the United States.
Mr. Wilmer A. Hill, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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. Carolene Products Company/Concurrence Butler

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Butler
* Wikipedia article
Mr. Justice BUTLER.
I concur in the result. Prima facie the facts alleged in the indictment are sufficient to constitute a violation of the statute. But they are not sufficient conclusively to establish guilt of the accused. At the trial it may introduce evidence to show that the declaration of the act that the described product is injurious to public health and that the sale of it is a fraud upon the public are without any substantial foundation. Mobile, J. & K.C.R.R. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43, 31 S.Ct. 136, 55 L.Ed. 78, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 226, Ann.Cas.1912A, 463; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 6, 49 S.Ct. 215, 217, 73 L.Ed. 575. The provisions on which the indictment rests should if possible be construed to avoid the serious question of constitutionality. Federal Trade Comm. v. Amer. Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298, 307, 44 S.Ct. 336, 337, 68 L.Ed. 696, 32 A.L.R. 786; Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 390, 44 S.Ct. 391, 395, 68 L.Ed. 748; Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Boone, 270 U.S. 466, 472, 46 S.Ct. 341, 343, 70 L.Ed. 688; Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 346, 48 S.Ct. 194, 198, 72 L.Ed. 303. If construed to exclude from interstate commerce wholesome food products that demonstrably are neither injurious to health nor calculated to deceive, they are repugnant to the Fifth Amendment. Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402, 412, 413, 46 S.Ct. 320, 322, 70 L.Ed. 654. See People v. Carolene Products Co., 345 Ill. 166, 177 N.E. 698. Carolene Products Co. v. McLaughlin, 365 Ill. 62, 5 N.E.2d 447; Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson, 276 Mich. 172, 267 N.W. 608. Carolene Products Co. v. Banning, 131 Neb. 429, 268 N.W. 313. The allegation of the indictment that Milnut 'is an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health,' tenders an issue of fact to be determined upon evidence.
# United States v. Carmack

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946) was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States federal government was empowered by Condemnation Act of August 1, 1888; the Public Buildings Act of 1926; and the United States Constitution to exercise its right of eminent domain over land containing buildings owned by a state or local government. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 230
United States v. Carmack
Argued: Oct. 18, 1946. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1946
See 329 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 627.
[Syllabus from pages 230-232 intentionally omitted]
Mr.John J. Cooney, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. J. R. Kelso, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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. Caroline

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 437
United States v. Caroline
THIS was a land case arising under the acts of 1824 and 1844, which came up by appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The circumstances of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Crittenden (Attorney-General), for the United States, and Mr. Soul e for the appellees.
Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 552

* 552 U.S. 38 (2007) Gall v. United States
* 552 U.S. 74 (2007) Watson v. United States
* 552 U.S. 85 (2007) Kimbrough v. United States (552 U.S. 85)
* 552 U.S. 147 (2008) Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
* 552 U.S. 214 (2008) Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
* 552 U.S. 312 (2008) Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
* 552 U.S. 346 (2008) Preston v. Ferrer
* 552 U.S. 472 (2008) Snyder v. Louisiana
* 552 U.S. 491 (2008) Medellín v. Texas
* 552 U.S. 597 (2008) New Jersey v. Delaware (552 U.S. 597)
# United States Reports/Volume 554

* 554 U.S. 164 (2008) Indiana v. Edwards
* 554 U.S. 191 (2008) Rothgery v. Gillespie County
* 554 U.S. 237 (2008) Greenlaw v. United States
* 554 U.S. 353 (2008) Giles v. California
* 554 U.S. 407 (2008) Kennedy v. Louisiana
* 554 U.S. 471 (2008) Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
* 554 U.S. 570 (2008) District of Columbia v. Heller
* 554 U.S. 724 (2008) Davis v. Federal Election Commission
# United States Reports/Volume 548

* 548 U.S. 1 (2006) Dixon v. United States
* 548 U.S. 53 (2006) Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
* 548 U.S. 81 (2006) Woodford v. Ngo
* 548 U.S. 140 (2006) United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
* 548 U.S. 163 (2006) Kansas v. Marsh
* 548 U.S. 230 (2006) Randall v. Sorrell
* 548 U.S. 291 (2006) Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
* 548 U.S. 331 (2006) Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
* 548 U.S. 399 (2006) League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
* 548 U.S. 557 (2006) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
* 548 U.S. 735 (2006) Clark v. Arizona
# United States Reports/Volume 549

* 549 U.S. 47 (2006) Lopez v. Gonzales
* 549 U.S. 70 (2006) Carey v. Musladin
* 549 U.S. 84 (2007) BP America Production Co. v. Burton
* 549 U.S. 118 (2007) Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
* 549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cunningham v. California
* 549 U.S. 346 (2007) Philip Morris USA v. Williams
* 549 U.S. 365 (2007) Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts
* 549 U.S. 422 (2007) Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation
* 549 U.S. 497 (2007) Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
# United States Reports/Volume 550

* 550 U.S. 1 (2007) Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A.
* 550 U.S. 45 (2007) Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc.
* 550 U.S. 81 (2007) Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education
* 550 U.S. 117 (2007) Davenport v. Washington Education Association
* 550 U.S. 124 (2007) Gonzales v. Carhart
* 550 U.S. 192 (2007) James v. United States (550 U.S. 192)
* 550 U.S. 372 (2007) Scott v. Harris
* 550 U.S. 398 (2007) KSR v. Teleflex
* 550 U.S. 437 (2007) Microsoft v. AT&T
* 550 U.S. 609 (2007) Los Angeles County v. Rettele
* 550 U.S. 618 (2007) Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
# United States Reports/Volume 551

* 551 U.S. 1 (2007) Uttecht v. Brown
* 551 U.S. 47 (2007) Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr
* 551 U.S. 74 (2007) Sole v. Wyner
* 551 U.S. 87 (2007) Claiborne v. United States
* 551 U.S. 89 (2007) Erickson v. Pardus
* 551 U.S. 96 (2007) Beck v. Pace Int'l Union
* 551 U.S. 112 (2007) Fry v. Pliler
* 551 U.S. 128 (2007) United States v. Atlantic Research Corp.
* 551 U.S. 142 (2007) Watson v. Philip Morris Cos.
* 551 U.S. 158 (2007) Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke
* 551 U.S. 177 (2007) Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn.
* 551 U.S. 193 (2007) Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York
* 551 U.S. 205 (2007) Bowles v. Russell
* 551 U.S. 224 (2007) Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc.
* 551 U.S. 249 (2007) Brendlin v. California
* 551 U.S. 264 (2007) Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing
* 551 U.S. 291 (2007) Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy
* 551 U.S. 308 (2007) Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.
* 551 U.S. 338 (2007) Rita v. United States
* 551 U.S. 393 (2007) Morse v. Frederick
* 551 U.S. 449 (2007) Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
* 551 U.S. 537 (2007) Wilkie v. Robbins
* 551 U.S. 587 (2007) Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
* 551 U.S. 644 (2007) National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
* 551 U.S. 701 (2007) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
* 551 U.S. 877 (2007) Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
* 551 U.S. 930 (2007) Panetti v. Quarterman
# United States Reports/Volume 546

* 546 U.S. 1 (2006) Dye v. Hofbauer
* 546 U.S. 6 (2006) Schriro v. Smith
* 546 U.S. 9 (2006) Kane v. Garcia Espitia
* 546 U.S. 12 (2006) Ivan Eberhart v. United States
* 546 U.S. 21 (2006) IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez
* 546 U.S. 43 (2006) United States v. Olson
* 546 U.S. 49 (2006) Schaffer v. Weast
* 546 U.S. 72 (2006) Maryland v. Blake
* 546 U.S. 74 (2006) Bradshaw v. Richey
* 546 U.S. 81 (2006) Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche
* 546 U.S. 95 (2006) Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
* 546 U.S. 132 (2006) Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.
* 546 U.S. 142 (2006) Lockhart v. United States
* 546 U.S. 151 (2006) United States v. Georgia
* 546 U.S. 164 (2006) Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.
* 546 U.S. 189 (2006) Evans v. Chavis
* 546 U.S. 212 (2006) Brown v. Sanders
* 546 U.S. 243 (2006) Gonzales v. Oregon
* 546 U.S. 303 (2006) Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt
* 546 U.S. 320 (2006) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
* 546 U.S. 333 (2006) Rice v. Collins
* 546 U.S. 345 (2006) Will v. Hallock
* 546 U.S. 356 (2006) Central Virginia Community College v. Katz
* 546 U.S. 394 (2006) Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
* 546 U.S. 410 (2006) Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
* 546 U.S. 413 (2006) Alaska v. United States
* 546 U.S. 418 (2006) Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal
* 546 U.S. 440 (2006) Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
* 546 U.S. 450 (2006) Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi
* 546 U.S. 454 (2006) Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
* 546 U.S. 459 (2006) Lance v. Dennis
* 546 U.S. 470 (2006) Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald
* 546 U.S. 481 (2006) Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service
* 546 U.S. 500 (2006) Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
* 546 U.S. 517 (2006) Oregon v. Guzek
# United States Reports/Volume 553

* 553 U.S. 16 (2008) MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue
* 553 U.S. 35 (2008) Baze v. Rees
* 553 U.S. 164 (2008) Virginia v. Moore
* 553 U.S. 181 (2008) Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
* 553 U.S. 285 (2008) United States v. Williams (553 U.S. 285)
* 553 U.S. 328 (2008) Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis
* 553 U.S. 442 (2008) CBOCS West v. Humphries
* 553 U.S. 474 (2008) Gomez-Perez v. Potter
* 553 U.S. 617 (2008) Quanta v. LG Electronics
* 553 U.S. 674 (2008) Munaf v. Geren
* 553 U.S. 723 (2008) Boumediene v. Bush (553 U.S. 723)