OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# US Army Directive removing authority for discharges from battalion commander level

* related portals: United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
    R 272036Z MAY 05
    FM DA WASHINGTON DC//G1 MILPERS//
    TO ALARACT
    ZEN/ALARACT
    INFO ZEN/HQDA G1 MILPERS MGT
    ZEN/HQDA G1 MILPERS ENLISTED
    BT
    UNCLAS ALARACT 110/2005
SUBJECT: FIRST-TERM ENLISTED ATTRITION
1. REFERENCES:
A. MEMORANDUM, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G-1, HQDA, 10 MARCH 2005, SUBJECT AS ABOVE.
B. AR 635-200 (ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS), PARAGRAPHS 1-1C,1-16A, 1-19C, D, AND E.
2. ALL MACOMS WILL SEND A MESSAGE VIA E-MAIL TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE: DAPE-MPEINBOX@HQDA.ARMY.MIL
3. WE ARE AN ARMY AT WAR AND INCREASING LEVELS OF ATTRITION OF FIRST-TERM ENLISTED SOLDIERS IN BOTH THE TRAINING BASE AND UNITS IS A MATTER OF GREAT CONCERN. WE NEED YOUR CONCERTED EFFORT TO REVERSE THE RECENT NEGATIVE TREND IN FIRST-TERM ATTRITION. BY REDUCING ATTRITION ONE PERCENT, THE ARMY CAN SAVE UP TO 3,000 INITIAL-TERM SOLDIERS THAT'S 3,000 MORE SOLDIERS IN OUR FORMATIONS. EACH SOLDIER RETAINED REDUCES THE STRAIN ON RECRUITING COMMAND AND OUR RETENTION PROGRAM, WHICH MUST REPLACE EVERY SOLDIER WHO DEPARTS THE ARMY EARLY.
4. AS AN ADDITIONAL MEANS OF REDUCING ATTRITION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY SEPARATION AUTHORITY FOR FIRST-TERM ENLISTED SOLDIERS IS ELEVATED FROM THE BATTALION COMMANDER TO THE SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY (SPCMCA) FOR THE FOLLOWING SEPARATION CATEGORIES PRESCRIBED BY AR 635-200: FAILURE TO MEET PROCUREMENT MEDICAL FITNESS STANDARDS (PARAGRAPH 5-11); PREGNANCY (CHAPTER 8); ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUG ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE (CHAPTER 9); ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT (CHAPTER 11); UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE (CHAPTER 13); SELECTED CHANGES IN SERVICE OBLIGATIONS (CHAPTER 16, PARAGRAPHS 16-4 THRU 16-10); AND FAILURE TO MEET BODY FAT STANDARDS (CHAPTER 18). WITHHOLDING OF SEPARATION AUTHORITY FROM BATTALION COMMANDERS, AND ELEVATING IT TO SPCMCA LEVEL, IS DIRECTED BY HQDA PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 1-19E, AR 635-200. SEPARATION AUTHORITY FOR CHAPTERS 5, 10, 14, AND 15 REMAIN AT THE SPCMA LEVEL.
5. THE FOREGOING DIRECTION APPLIES TO SEPARATION PROCEEDINGS IN PROGRESS OR PENDING INITIATION. IT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL AT LEAST 1 JUNE 2006, AT WHICH TIME IT WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONTINUATION OR TERMINATION.
6. COMMANDERS AT ALL ECHELONS ARE ENJOINED TO REVIEW THE GUIDANCE ON COUNSELING, REHABILITATION, AND RETRAINING OF SOLDIERS PROMULGATED IN AR 635-200, PARAGRAPHS 1-1C AND 1-16A.
7. THIS MESSAGE WILL EXPIRE 1 JUNE 2006.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
source
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
# US Coast Guard NOK death follow-up

* related portals: Regret to Inform.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
       This copy of the notification is to be sent as a follow-up to the original notification, and is to be written by the deceased's commanding officer within 48 hours of the death.
Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Jones 123 Main Street Somewhere, CA 95123
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones
Please accept my deepest sympathy on the death of your (Relationship), (Full Name and Rank of Deceased) and allow me to tell you what we know about the circumstances surrounding (His/her) death. [Provide sufficient facts concerning the casualty, search attempts, medical care, etc. to satisfactorily answer all immediate questions in the minds of the next of kin. See Article 11A-8, Coast Guard Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series).]
[If member was missing and searches have not located the member's remains, include: "We regret that the extensive search for your (indicate relationship) has met with negative results" or "We regret that the extensive search failed to locate any trace of your (specify relationship)." Do not make any statement concerning termination of any searches.]
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please feel free to contact me at (999) 555-1234.
Sincerely, M. R. ROBERTS Lieutenant, U. S. Coast Guard Commanding Officer
# US Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Harlan
* Dissenting Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 351
US Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles
Argued: Nov. 12, 1970. --- Decided: Jan 13, 1971
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the judgment and opinion of the Court while still adhering to his dissent in Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580.

## 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
# US Coast Guard NOK death notification

* related portals: Regret to Inform.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Jones 123 Main Street Somewhere, CA 95123
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones
I deeply regret to inform you on behalf of the United States Coast Guard that your (specify relationship, rate/rank, SSN) died on (date) at/aboard (place) as a result of (provide a brief description of cause of death). Your (specify relationship) died while in the service of his/her country. Please accept my most heartfelt sympathy in your great loss.
We hope we can be of assistance to you in your bereavement. We will transport the remains, with an escort, to any place you designate. Also, we will allow you an amount toward funeral and interment expenses not to exceed $6900, for burial in a private cemetery or $5,500 if remains are consigned to a funeral director prior to interment in a national cemetery or $600 dollars if remains are consigned directly to a national cemetery.
(Name and Phone # of CACO or DAO) has been assigned to give you every possible assistance.
Please be assured of the heartfelt sympathy and prayers of your (specify relationship)'s shipmates. A letter setting forth the circumstances of death will follow.
       (Name, rate/rank, and title of unit commanding officer)
# US Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 351
U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 29. Argued: November 12, 1970 --- Decided: January 13, 1971
The enactment of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, which provides for the enforcement of grievance and arbitration provisions of collective-bargaining agreements in industries affecting commerce, did not abrogate, but merely added an optional remedy to, the remedy of 46 U.S.C. § 596, which permits seamen to sue for wages in federal court. Pp. 352-358.
408 F. 2d 1065, affirmed.
DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, HARLAN, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BLACK, J., filed a concurring statement, post, p. 358. HARLAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 358. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 366.
George W. Sullivan argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
I. Duke Avnet argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

## 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 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 1

Ⅰ. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be forthwith transmitted to the executives of the states of Virginia and North Carolina, a complete list of the officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the lines of those states respectively, who are entitled to receive arrears of pay due for services in the years one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, annexing the particular sum that is due to each individual, with a request to the executives of the said states, to make known to the claimants in the most effectual manner, that the said arrears are ready to be discharged on proper application.
That the President of the United States be requested to cause the Secretary of the Treasury to take the necessary steps for paying (within the said states respectively) the money appropriated by Congress, on the twenty-ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, for the discharging the arrears of pay due to the troops of the lines of the said states respectively.
That the Secretary of the Treasury, in cases where the payment has not been made to the original claimant in person, or his representative, be directed to take order for making the payment to the original claimant, or to such person or persons only as shall produce a power of attorney, duly attested by two justices of the peace of the county in which such person or persons reside, authorizing him or them to receive a certain specified sum: except where certificates or warrants have been issued under authority of the United States for any of the said arrears of pay, and the same shall be produced by the claimant or claimants.
Approved, June 7, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 3

​Ⅲ.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the clerks in the office of the commissioner of army accounts are entitled to receive, for their services, a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, to be paid in the same manner, and at the same rate, as the salary allowed to the clerks in the department of treasury: and that the auditor and comptroller be authorized to adjust the accounts of the clerks in the said office, upon the same principles as those of the treasury department, agreeably to the appropriation by law.
Approved, August 2, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 5

​Ⅴ.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all surveys of lands in the Western Territory, made under the direction of the late geographer, Thomas Hutchins, agreeable to contracts for part of the said lands made with the late board of treasury, be returned to, and perfected by, the Secretary of the Treasury, so as to complete the said contracts: and that the said secretary be, and is hereby, authorized to direct the making and completing any other surveys that remain to be made, so as to comply on the part of the United States with the several contracts aforesaid, in conformity to the terms thereof.
Approved, August 12, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 1

Chapter I.—An Act supplementary to the act intitled “An act making further provision for the payment of the debts of the United States.”
Recital.Whereas no express provision has been made for extending the act, intitled “An act to provide more effectually for the collection of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels,” to the collection of the duties imposed by the said “Act making further provision for the payment of the debts of the United States,” doubts concerning the same may arise:Provisions of the act for collection of duties, extended to the act making further provision for the payment of the debts of the United States.—Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act, intitled “An act to provide more effectually for the collection of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels,” doth and shall extend to, and be in force for the collection of the duties specified and laid in and by the act, intitled “Act making further provision for the payment of the debts of the United States,” as fully and effectually, as if every regulation, restriction, penalty, provision, clause, matter and thing therein contained, had been inserted in and re-enacted by the act last aforesaid.
Approved, December 27, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 8

Chap. VIII.—An Act further to suspend part of an act intituled “An act to regulate the collection of the duties imposed by law on tonnage of ships or vessels, and on goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States.”
Repealed. Act of Aug. 4, 1790, chap. 35, sec. 74. Restriction by a former act, on vessels bound up the Potomac, suspended until first May, 1791. Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of an act, intituled, “An act to regulate the collection of the duties imposed by law on the tonnage of ships or vessels, and on goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States,” as obliges ships or vessels bound up the river Potomac to come to, and deposit manifests of their cargoes with the officers at Saint Mary’s and Yeocomico, before they proceed to their port of delivery, shall be and is hereby further suspended, from the first day of May next, to the first of May in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one.
Additional ports of delivery in Connecticut.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the landing places in Windsor and East Windsor, in the State of Connecticut, shall be ports of delivery, and be included in the district of New London.
Approved, April 15 , 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 2

​Ⅱ.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all treaties made, or which shall be made and promulged, under the authority of the United States, shall, from time to time, be published and annexed to their code of laws, by the Secretary of State.
Approved, June 14, 1790.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Resolution 4

​Ⅳ.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the expense of procuring seals for the supreme, circuit, and district courts of the United States, shall be defrayed out of the money appropriated, by an act of the present session, for defraying the contingent charges of government.
Approved, August 2, 1790.
# United States Reports/Volume 500

* 500 U.S. 1 (1991) Stevens III v. Department of Treasury
* 500 U.S. 13 (1991) In Re Amendment to Rule 39
* 500 U.S. 20 (1991) Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane Corporation
* 500 U.S. 44 (1991) County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
* 500 U.S. 72 (1991) International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund
* 500 U.S. 90 (1991) Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services Inc
* 500 U.S. 110 (1991) Lankford v. Idaho
* 500 U.S. 136 (1991) McCarthy v. Bronson
* 500 U.S. 145 (1991) Michigan v. K Lucas
* 500 U.S. 160 (1991) Touby v. United States
* 500 U.S. 172 (1991) Ford Motor Credit Company Inc v. Department of Revenue State of Florida
* 500 U.S. 173 (1991) Rust v. Sullivan
* 500 U.S. 226 (1991) Siegert v. H Gilley
* 500 U.S. 248 (1991) Florida v. Jimeno
* 500 U.S. 257 (1991) McCormick v. United States
* 500 U.S. 291 (1991) Farrey v. J Sanderfoot
* 500 U.S. 305 (1991) Owen v. Owen
* 500 U.S. 322 (1991) Summit Health Ltd v. J Pinhas
* 500 U.S. 344 (1991) Braxton v. United States
* 500 U.S. 352 (1991) Hernandez v. New York
* 500 U.S. 380 (1991) Illinois v. Kentucky
* 500 U.S. 391 (1991) Yates v. Evatt
* 500 U.S. 415 (1991) Mu'Min v. Virginia
* 500 U.S. 453 (1991) Chapman v. United States
* 500 U.S. 478 (1991) Burns v. Reed
* 500 U.S. 507 (1991) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
* 500 U.S. 565 (1991) California v. Acevedo
* 500 U.S. 603 (1991) Exxon Corporation v. Central Gulf Lines Inc.
* 500 U.S. 614 (1991) Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company Inc.
* 500 U.S. 646 (1991) Clark v. Roemer
* 500 U.S. 946 (1991) Herring v. United States
* 500 U.S. 961 (1991) Gaskins v. McKellar
* 500 U.S. 962 (1991) Thakkar v. Debevoise
# United States Reports/Volume 506

* 506 U.S. 1 (1992) Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
* 506 U.S. 5 (1992) Montana v. Imlay
* 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Church of Scientology of California v. United States
* 506 U.S. 20 (1992) Parke v. Raley
* 506 U.S. 40 (1992) Richmond v. Lewis
* 506 U.S. 56 (1992) Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois
* 506 U.S. 73 (1992) Mississippi v. Louisiana (506 U.S. 73)
* 506 U.S. 80 (1992) Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States
* 506 U.S. 103 (1992) Farrar v. Hobby
* 506 U.S. 125 (1992) District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade
* 506 U.S. 139 (1993) Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
* 506 U.S. 153 (1993) Bath Iron Works Corporation v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
* 506 U.S. 194 (1993) Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council
* 506 U.S. 224 (1993) Nixon v. United States
* 506 U.S. 255 (1993) Crosby v. United States
* 506 U.S. 263 (1993) Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic
* 506 U.S. 357 (1993) Dobbs v. Zant
* 506 U.S. 364 (1993) Lockhart v. Fretwell
* 506 U.S. 390 (1993) Herrera v. Collins
* 506 U.S. 447 (1993) Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
* 506 U.S. 461 (1993) Graham v. Collins
* 506 U.S. 523 (1993) Bufferd v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 506 U.S. 534 (1993) Zafiro v. United States
* 506 U.S. 546 (1993) United States v. Hill (506 U.S. 546)
* 506 U.S. 814 (1992) Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. California
* 506 U.S. 869 (1992) BB Asset Management, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.
# United States Reports/Volume 501

* 501 U.S. 1 (1991) Connecticut v. Doehr
* 501 U.S. 32 (1991) Chambers v. Nasco Inc.
* 501 U.S. 78 (1991) Johnson v. Home State Bank
* 501 U.S. 104 (1991) Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Solimino
* 501 U.S. 115 (1991) Gollust v. Mendell
* 501 U.S. 129 (1991) Burns v. United States
* 501 U.S. 157 (1991) Toibb v. Radloff
* 501 U.S. 171 (1991) McNeil v. Wisconsin
* 501 U.S. 190 (1991) Litton Financial Printing Division Division of Litton Business Systems Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
* 501 U.S. 221 (1991) Oklahoma v. New Mexico
* 501 U.S. 252 (1991) Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc.
* 501 U.S. 294 (1991) Wilson v. Seiter
* 501 U.S. 312 (1991) Renne v. Geary
* 501 U.S. 350 (1991) Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson
* 501 U.S. 380 (1991) Chisom v. Roemer
* 501 U.S. 419 (1991) Houston Lawyers' Association v. Attorney General of Texas
* 501 U.S. 429 (1991) Florida v. Bostick
* 501 U.S. 452 (1991) Gregory v. Ashcroft
* 501 U.S. 496 (1991) Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.
* 501 U.S. 529 (1991) James Beam Distilling Company v. Georgia
* 501 U.S. 560 (1991) Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc.
* 501 U.S. 597 (1991) Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier
* 501 U.S. 624 (1991) Schad v. Arizona
* 501 U.S. 663 (1991) Cohen v. Cowles Media Company
* 501 U.S. 680 (1991) Pauley v. Bethenergy Mines Inc.
* 501 U.S. 722 (1991) Coleman v. Thompson
* 501 U.S. 775 (1991) Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak and Circle Village
* 501 U.S. 797 (1991) Ylst v. Nunnemaker
* 501 U.S. 808 (1991) Payne v. Tennessee
* 501 U.S. 868 (1991) Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 501 U.S. 923 (1991) Peretz v. United States
* 501 U.S. 957 (1991) Harmelin v. Michigan
* 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
* 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg
* 501 U.S. 1239 (1991) Rector v. Bryant
* 501 U.S. 1262 (1991) Feltrop v. Missouri
* 501 U.S. 1282 (1991) McCleskey v. Bowers
* 501 U.S. 1283 (1991) Edap, S.A. v. Richard Wolf
* 501 U.S. 1301 (1991) Barnes v. E-Systems Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Insurance Plan
# United States Reports/Volume 502

* 502 U.S. 1 (1991) United States v. Ibarra
* 502 U.S. 9 (1991) Mireles v. Waco
* 502 U.S. 16 (1991) Zatko v. California
* 502 U.S. 21 (1991) Hafer v. Melo
* 502 U.S. 32 (1991) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States v. McOrp Financial Inc.
* 502 U.S. 46 (1991) Griffin v. United States
* 502 U.S. 62 (1991) Estelle v. McGuire
* 502 U.S. 81 (1991) Southwest Marine Inc v. Gizoni
* 502 U.S. 93 (1991) Wooddell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 71
* 502 U.S. 104 (1991) Gibson v. Florida Bar
* 502 U.S. 105 (1991) Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board
* 502 U.S. 129 (1991) Ardestani v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
* 502 U.S. 151 (1991) Union Bank v. Wolas
* 502 U.S. 164 (1991) United States Department of State v. Ray
* 502 U.S. 183 (1991) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights Inc.
* 502 U.S. 197 (1991) Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission
* 502 U.S. 215 (1991) King v. St. Vincent's Hospital
* 502 U.S. 224 (1991) Hunter v. Bryant
* 502 U.S. 236 (1992) In Re James Blodgett
* 502 U.S. 244 (1992) Smith v. Barry
* 502 U.S. 251 (1992) County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation
* 502 U.S. 279 (1992) Norman v. Reed Cook County Officers Electoral Board
* 502 U.S. 301 (1992) Molzof v. United States
* 502 U.S. 314 (1992) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty
* 502 U.S. 346 (1992) White v. Illinois
* 502 U.S. 367 (1992) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail
* 502 U.S. 410 (1992) Dewsnup v. Timm
* 502 U.S. 437 (1992) Wyoming v. Oklahoma
* 502 U.S. 478 (1992) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias
* 502 U.S. 491 (1992) Presley v. Etowah County Commission
* 502 U.S. 527 (1992) Lechmere Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
* 502 U.S. 930 (1991) Pensinger v. California
* 502 U.S. 933 (1991) Siggers v. Tunica County Board of Supervisors
* 502 U.S. 995 (1991) O'Dell v. Thompson
* 502 U.S. 999 (1991) Martin v. Knox
* 502 U.S. 1017 (1991) Smith v. United States
* 502 U.S. 1052 (1992) Clark v. Collins
* 502 U.S. 1125 (1992) Singal v. General Motors Corporation
* 502 U.S. 1301 (1991) Campos W.R. v. City Houston