OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Jordan (342 U.S. 288)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 288
United States v. Jordan (342 U.S. 288)
Argued: Nov. 27, 1951. ---

## 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. Jordan (342 U.S. 288)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 288
United States v. Jordan (342 U.S. 288)
Argued: Nov. 27, 1951. ---

## 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. Josef Perez

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
22 U.S. 579
United States v. Josef Perez
March 17th.
Mr. Justice STORY 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. Joseph

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 614
United States v. Joseph

## 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. Kimbal

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 636
United States v. Kimbal

## 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. Kimball

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 726
United States v. Kimball
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
This was an action brought by the United States upon the bond of a collector of internal revenue. The breach assigned was his failure to pay over the balance alleged to be due July 1, 1871, for stamps and other property transmitted to him by the proper officers of the government, and for public moneys which he had collected.
The plaintiff put in evidence a certified account from the books of the Treasury Department showing the balance due. It appears that, on going out of office, the collector turned over to his successor a list of uncollected taxes to that amount. Evidence was introduced tending to show that he had used due diligence to collect them, and applied to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a credit to the amount of them. His claim to a credit was rejected by that officer.
The court charged the jury, in substance, that the collector, having made an unsuccessful application to the proper department for the credit, had a right to make claim therefor on the trial, if under the law and the facts he was entitled to it
The court refused to instruct the jury that the receipt of the collector's successor in office showing such lists was not entitled to weight as evidence, unless accompanied by the certificate of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the First Comptroller of the Treasury, that due diligence had been used by the collector; and as no such certificate was offered in the case, the receipt should be disregarded by the jury.
The United States excepted to the charge given and to that refused. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the United States sued out this writ.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
There was no opposing counsel.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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. Kent Hovind (Government's Renewed Motion for Order to Show Cause)

Available from PACER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NOTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KENT E. HOVIND,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:06CR83 - MCR
GOVERNMENT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
COMES NOW, the United States of America, through the below named attorney and files its Renewed motion for Order to Show Cause. As grounds, the government states as follows:
1. On October 11, 2013, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 469) denying the government’s previously filed Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Discharge of Lis Pendens and granting thirty days to file a renewed motion to show cause. (Doc. 465)
2. This Court has correctly pointed out the elements of criminal contempt: (1) a lawful and reasonably specific order that (2) the defendant has violated (3) willfully. Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2007). Applying Romero to the instant case, we have a lawful and specific order entered by this Court, Case No. 3:12cv136 (Doc. 7, Para. 7), that specifically states:
   “Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from interfering with the rights of the United States of America in and to the property described above in any manner including filing or attempting to file liens, claim or other encumbrances in any manner whatsoever without a prior order of this court. Defendants are also enjoined from filing or attempting to file, directly or through the services of others, new notices of lien, indebtedness, claims or purported liens, of whatever nature, with the Clerk of Court in an for Escambia County, Florida, on any property forfeited to the United States.”
page 2 and that Hovind has violated by filing four lis pendens against property that is subject to the Court’s order and Hovind’s filing was willful.
3. As such, the government requests that the proper sanction is to hold Hovind in criminal contempt.
4. The United States Attorney’s Office is ready to immediately appoint a criminal prosecutor to the case for any further action that this Court deems necessary.
5. The government further suggests that the only sanction that will punish Hovind is additional prison time as the government does not believe that Hovind has additional assets with which to pay a fine and, will, simply solicit funds from hardworking, law-abiding citizens.
WHEREFORE, the government prays this Honorable Court will enter an order holding Hovind criminal contempt for willfully violating the prior order of the court.
Certificate of Service
On November 12, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. Mail to Kent E. Hovind, (BOP# 06452-017), FCI Berlin, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 9000, Berlin, New Hampshire 03570.
Respectfully submitted,
PAMELA C. MARSH
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
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. Kesterson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 299
United States v. Kesterson
This case, like U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223, 80 L.Ed. 233, No. 40, involves the validity of section 701 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA §§ 192, 206). The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed judgments of conviction under an indictment charging engaging in the business of a retail liquor dealer contrary to the laws of Oklahoma on August 17, 1934. U.S. v. Kesterson (D.C.) 8 F.Supp. 680; Kesterson v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 76 F.(2d) 913.
For the reasons given in the opinion in No. 40 the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, Mr. Justice STONE, and Mr. Justice CARDOZO, dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice CARDOZO'S opinion in U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223, 80 L.Ed. 233, No. 40.

## 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. Kesterson

United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 299
United States v. Kesterson
mS.CT229mMessrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., Joseph B. Keenan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mahlon D. Kiefer, Gordon Dean, and W. Marvin Smith, all of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Frank Hickman, of Tulsa, Okl., for respondents.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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. Kimball/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 726
United States v. Kimball
In a suit against a collector of internal revenue on his bond for a balance of taxes charged to him under the provisions of sect. 3218, Rev. Stat., he is entitled to a credit for all uncollected taxes transferred by him to his successor in office, if he proves that due diligence was used by him for their collection. The certificate of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a condition precedent to a credit by the First Comptroller of the Treasury before suit, but not to a defence upon the facts if a suit is brought.
The presentation to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue by a collector of a claim for credit in his account, and its rejection by him, is such a presentation of the claim 'to the accounting officers of the treasury for their examination,' and disallowance by them, as will permit the collector, under sect. 951, Rev. Stat., to make proof of his claim in a suit brought against him by the United States to collect what is due from him on his account.
Judgment affirmed.

## 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. Key

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 322
United States v. Key
Argued: Jan. 21, 1970. --- Decided: March 30, 1970
Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Sigmund J. Beck, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL 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. King

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. King."
* 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. King (44 U.S. 773)
* United States v. King (48 U.S. 833)
* United States v. King (147 U.S. 676)
* United States v. King (395 U.S. 1)
See also King v. United States.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 167

Chap. CLXVII.—An Act to alter the judicial districts of Virginia, and for other purposes.
Counties to compose a part of the western, instead of the eastern judicial district of Virginia.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following counties in the state of Virginia shall be a part of the eastern judicial district of Virginia, ​and shall be added to, and form a part of, the western district, that is to say: the counties of Botetourt, Rockbridge, Alleghany, Bath, Pendleton, Augusta, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Frederick, Jefferson, Berkley, Morgan, Hampshire, and Hardy: and that, in addition to the terms of the district court now holden in the western district the judge of the said western district shall hold two terms in each year, at Staunton, in the county of Augusta.
Times and places fixed for the holding of the courts.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the terms of the court in the said western district shall be held on the days and at the places hereinafter mentioned, viz: at Staunton, on the second Mondays in April and September; at Wythe Courthouse, on the third Mondays in April and September; at Lewisburg, on the fourth Mondays in April and September; and at Clarksburg, on the fourth Mondays in May and October, in each year.
Courts to be adjourned should the judge not attend.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if the judge shall not attend on the first day of any court, such court shall stand adjourned, from day to day, for three days, if the same cause continue; after which time, if the judge shall still fail to attend, the court shall stand adjourned until the first day of the next term.
Power of the said judge.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the judge of said court shall have power to hold special sessions, at his discretion, at either of the said places, for the trial of civil or criminal cases.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 168

Chap. CLXVIII.—An Act for altering the time for holding the circuit court of the United States for the fourth circuit in the Maryland district.
Terms of the circuit court in the district of Maryland altered.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the terms of the circuit court of the United States for the fourth circuit in the district of Maryland, which are now directed by law to be holden on the first day of May and seventh day of November, in each year, shall be hereafter holden on the 8th days of May and December in each year, except where such days shall occur on Sunday, when the terms of the said court shall commence and be holden on the next succeeding day.
First session to be held on December the 8th, 1824.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the first session of the said circuit court, after the passage of this act, shall be held on the eight [eighth] day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and twenty-four.
All process which may have issued, to be held returnable to the terms appointed by this act.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all process which may have issued, or which may hereafter issue returnable to the next succeeding terms, as heretofore established, shall be held returnable, and be returned, to those terms to which they are severally changed by this act.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 171

Chap. CLXXI.—An Act to establish an additional land office in the state of Missouri.
Act of Feb. 17, 1818, ch. 12. Public lands to be formed into a new land district. Act of March 3, 1823, ch. 66. Act of May 4, 1826, ch. 32.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the public lands of the United States included in the present district of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, as lies within the following boundaries, to wit: Beginning on the Mississippi river, between townships numbered forty-eight and forty-nine, thence west to the range line between ranges ten and eleven; thence north to the township line between townships numbered fifty-two and fifty-three; thence west to the range line between ​ranges thirteen and fourteen; thence north to the northern boundary line of the state of Missouri; thence east with the state line to the river Desmoines; thence, with the river Desmoines and the state line, to the Mississippi river; thence, with and down the Mississippi river to the place of beginning, so as to include all the islands within the limits of the state of Missouri, shall be formed into a new land district, to be called “The district of Salt river,” and, for the sale of the public lands within the district hereby constituted, there shall be a land office established at such place, within the said district, as the President of the United States may designate.
A register and receiver to be appointed.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be a register and receiver appointed to said office to superintend the sales of public lands in the said district, and who shall reside and the place where said office is established, give security in the same manner and sums, and whose compensation, emoluments, duties, and authorities, shall, in every respect, be the same, in relation to the lands to be disposed of, at their offices, as are or may be, by law, provided, in relation to the registers and receivers of public moneys, in the several offices established for the sale of the public lands.
All lands embraced within said district which have been offered for sale pursuant to any proclamation of the President, and now remain unsold, liable to be disposed of at private sale.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all such public lands, embraced within the district created by this act, which shall have been offered for sale to the highest bidder, at St. Louis, pursuant to any proclamation of the President of the United States, and which lands remain unsold at the taking effect of this act, shall be subject to be entered and sold, at private sale, by the proper officer or officers of the land office hereby created, in the same manner, and subject to the same terms and upon the like conditions, as the sales of said lands would have been subjected to, in the land office at St. Louis, had they remained attached to that office.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 169

Chap. CLXIX.—An Act granting to the counties or parishes of each state and territory of the United States, in which the public lands are situated, the right of pre-emption to quarter sections of land, for seats of justice within the same.
The right of pre-emption to one quarter section of land granted to the several counties of each state and territory of the United States, where there are public lands, for certain purposes. Proviso. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be granted to the several counties or parishes of each state and territory of the United States, where there are public lands, at the minimum price for which the public lands of the United States are sold, the right of pre-emption to one quarter section of land, in each of the counties or parishes, of said states and territories, in trust for said counties or parishes, respectively, for the establishment of seats of justice therein: Provided, The proceeds of the sale of each of said quarter sections shall be appropriated for the purpose of erecting public buildings in the county or parish for which it is located, after deducting therefrom the amount originally paid for the same: And provided, further, That the seat of justice for said counties or parishes, respectively, shall be fixed previously to a sale of the adjoining lands within the county or parish for which the same is located.
Parts of other acts repealed.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of such acts, heretofore passed, granting to states rights of pre-emption, for county or parish purposes, as require said seats of justice to be continued at or near the centre of each of said counties or parishes, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 170

Chap. CLXX.—An Act to alter the judicial districts of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes.
Certain counties to compose a part of the western, instead of the eastern judicial district of Pennsylvania. Time and place of holding courts.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following counties in the state of Pennsylvania shall cease to be a part of the eastern judicial district of Pennsylvania, and shall be added to, and form a part of, the western district; that is to say: Susquehanna, Bradford, Tioga, Union, Northumberland, Columbia, Luzerne, and Lycoming: and that, besides the terms of the district court directed by law to be held at Pittsburg, for the western district, the judge of the said western district shall hold two terms in every year, at William’s Port, in the county of Lycoming, which shall commence on the first Mondays of the months of June and October, in each and every year, beginning in October next, and be continued and adjourned from time to time, as the court may deem expedient for the despatch of the business thereof.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 172

Chap. CLXXII.—An Act to provide for the sale of lands conveyed to the United States in certain cases, and for other purposes.
In all cases where the states of insolvent debtors have been, or shall be, assigned to the United States under the act of June 6, 1798, ch. 49, the agent of the treasury is authorized to sell such estate, whether real or personal.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the agent of the treasury be, and he hereby is, authorized, in all cases where the estates of insolvent debtors have been, or hereafter shall be, assigned to the United States, under the act of the sixth June, seventeen hundred and ninety-eight, entitled “An act providing for the discharge of persons imprisoned for debts due to the United States,” to sell such estates, whether real or personal, at such time, and in such manner, as, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, he shall think fit, for the best price that can be had therefor, and to make all needful conveyances, assignments, or transfers, of the same, to the purchaser or purchasers.
United States may become the purchaser of lands or tenements of a debtor, when sold at their suit. Proviso.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, at any and every sale, on executions, at the suit of the United States, of lands or tenements of a debtor, it shall be lawful for the United States, by such agent as the agent of the treasury shall appoint, to become the purchaser of such lands and tenements: Provided, That in no case shall such agent bid in behalf of the United States for a greater amount than that of the judgment for which such estate may be exposed to sale, and the costs; and it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which such sale shall be held, in case such purchases shall be made, to make all needful conveyances, assignments, transfers, to the United States; and the agent of the treasury is hereby authorized, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, to sell and convey the said lands and tenements in the same manner as is directed by the first section of this act, in respect to lands and tenements assigned by insolvent debtors. ​Act to be construed so as not to impair any other remedy than the one intended.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That nothing herein contained, shall be deemed or construed to take away or impair any other remedy which the United States may be now entitled to have against the person or property of debtors, to enforce the satisfaction of judgments obtained, or which may hereafter be obtained.
Approved, May 26, 1824.