OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 337

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 1740th meeting, on 15 August 1973
The Security Council
Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/1736,
Having noted the contents of the letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10983),
Having heard the statement of the representative of Lebanon concerning the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the hijacking, by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese civilian airliner on lease to Iraqi Airway,
Gravely concerned that such an act carried out by Israel, a Member of the United Nations, constitutes a serious interference with international civil aviation and violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recognizing that such an act could jeopardize the lives an safety of passengers and crew and violates the provisions of international conventions safeguarding civil aviation,
Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968 and 286 (1970) of 9 September 1970,
1. Condemns the Government of Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space;
2. Considers that these actions by Israel constitute a violation of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council of 1967, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the international conventions on civil aviation and the principles of international law and morality;
3. Calls on the International Civil Aviation Organization to take due account of this resolution when considering adequate measures to safeguard international civil aviation against these actions;
4. Calls on Israel to desist from any and all acts that violate Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial civil aviation and solemnly warns Israel that, if such acts are repeated, the Council will consider taking adequate steps or measures to enforce its resolutions.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Iron Silver Mining

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
128 U.S. 673
United States v. Iron Silver Mining
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for appellant.
L. S. Dixon, for appellees.
FIELD, J.

## 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. Irving

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
42 U.S. 250
United States v. Irving

## 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. Irwin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 125
United States v. Irwin
Atty. Gen. Garland and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for appellants.
Wm. E. Earle and Jas. L. Pugh, Jr., for appellees.
MATTHEWS, J.

## 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. Irvine

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 450
United States v. Irvine
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
No counsel appeared for Irvine.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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. Roberts

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 501
United States v. Roberts

## 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. Robel

United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the United States government cannot deprive the people of constitutional rights, even in the interests of national security. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Brennan

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 258
United States v. Robel
Argued: Oct. 9, 1967. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1967
Kevin T. Maroney, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
John J. Abt, New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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. Rizzo 146157/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 559
United States v. Rizzo 146157
Mr. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., for the United States.
No opinion filed in court below.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted.

## 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. Robbins

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 315
United States v. Robbins
Argued: Dec. 7, 8, 1925. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1926
Messrs. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 316-321 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Lloyd M. Robbins and Peter F. Dunne, both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 321-325 intentionally omitted]
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. Ambrose (2 F. 764)

* related portals: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
2 F. 764 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1880)
United States v. Ambrose.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio.June, 1880.)
On demurrer to an indictment under section 5438, U. S. Rev. St. for making, as clerk of a United States court, false claims against the government.
Swayne, C. J.Held:
1. That it is sufficient to charge a presentation to the “First Auditor of the Treasury” without naming the person who held such office.
2. That the different items of an account may all be included in one count of the indictment, and that it is not necessary that there should be separate counts for each false item.
3. Section 5438, U. S. Rev. St., provides that “every person who makes or causes to be made, or presents or causes to be presented, for payment or approval,” etc., any claim against the government, knowing it to be false, etc., shall be guilty, etc. In the original statute, (12 St. at Large, 696, 698,) from which this section in the Revised Statutes is taken, a semicolon followed the word “made,” in the first clause, instead of the comma now there, and there was no comma after the word “presented,” whereas in the Revision there is. An indictment under this 5438th section, which charges that the accused did “unlawfully make a claim against the government of the United States,” well knowing the same to be false, etc., is insufficient. It should charge that the claim was made “for payment or approval.” The changes in the punctuation of the original statute have altered the meaning of this section, and the phrase “for payment or approval” is a part of both the first and second clauses of the section.
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. American-Asiatic Steamship Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 537
United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Company
Argued: December 2, 1916. --- Decided: January 22, 1917
Solicitor General Davis and Mr. Carroll G. Todd filed a motion to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice.
No counsel opposed.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Chief Justice White, by direction 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. American Bell Telephone Company (128 U.S. 315)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
128 U.S. 315
United States v. American Bell Telephone Company
[Statement of Case from pages 315-327 intentionally omitted]
[George A. Jenks, Sol. Gen., A. G. Thurman, Eppa Hunton, Jeff. Chandler, and C. S. Whitman, for appellant,
J. J. Storrow,
[Argument of Counsel from pages 327-346 intentionally omitted]
E. N. Dickerson, and Chauncey Smith, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 346-349 intentionally omitted]
MILLER, J.

## 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. American-Asiatic Steamship Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 537
United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Company
Argued: December 2, 1916. --- Decided: January 22, 1917
The United States sued to restrain the carrying out of agreements between British, German, and American steamship companies who were defendants, on the ground that they were in violation of the Anti-trust Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 209, chap. 647, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8820). Overruling the contention that that act did not relate to contracts concerning ocean carriage, the court entered decrees against the United States in both cases, dismissing the bills for want of equity, on the ground that the assailed agreements were not in conflict with the Anti-trust Act except as to a particular discrimination found to have been practised in one of the cases which was provided against. 220 Fed. 230. At the time this action was taken by the court below, as the result of the European War, the assailed agreements had been dissolved and the questions raised by the bills were therefore purely moot, as directly decided to be the case as to a similar situation in United States v. Hamburg Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466, 60 L. ed. 387, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212.
Under these circumstances the request now made by the United States that the doctrine announced in the Hamburg-Amerikanische Case be applied to both of these cases, and the relief afforded in that case be awarded, is well founded and must be granted. It follows, therefore, that the decrees below must be reversed and the cases be remanded to the court below with directions to dismiss the bills without prejudice to the right of the United States in the future to assail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the Antitrust Act.
And it is so 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
# United States v. American-Foreign Steamship Corp.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 685
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN-FOREIGN STEAMSHIP CORP. et al.
Argued: April 25, 1960. --- Decided: June 20, 1960
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. J. Franklin Fort and Mr. Arthur M. Becker, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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. American Bell Telephone Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. American Bell Telephone Company."
* 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. American Bell Telephone Company (128 U.S. 315)
* United States v. American Bell Telephone Company (159 U.S. 548)
* United States v. American Bell Telephone Company (167 U.S. 224)
# United States Touhy v. Ragen

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 462
United States Touhy v. Ragen
Argued: Nov. 27-28, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1951
Mr. Robert B. Johnstone, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, Washington, D.C., for respondent George R. mCswain.
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 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 266
United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson
Argued: March 1, 2, 1943. --- Decided: May 17, 1943
Mr. William C. Fitts, Jr., of Knoxville, Tenn., for petitioner.
Messrs. George H. Wright and George Lyle Jones, both of Asheville, N.C., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 267 intentionally omitted]
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 Trask v. Wanamaker/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
147 U.S. 149
United States Trask v. Wanamaker
The relator applied for the writ of error herein to one of the justices of this court by a petition, setting up the alleged errors relied on, and stating that the questions of law involved 'concern the interest of more than one thousand persons, ex-postmasters, who reside in many different states and territories, and are in like case with herself, and who have presented claims for like relief before the postmaster general, and that all of such claims amount to more than one hundred thousand dollars;' and praying that the wirt be allowed 'under section 706 of the Revised Statutes.' The order was thereupon granted.
Upon an almost identical petition a writ of error was allowed in U.S. v. Vilas, 124 U.S. 86, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 422, but no question as to the pecuniary amount involved in its relation to jurisdiction, or as to the repeal of section 706, was suggested by counsel or considered by the court.
Sections 706 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and 847 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the justices of this court under special circumstances, are no longer in force. Act Feb. 25, 1879, c. 99, (20 St. p. 320;) Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398; Dennison v. Alexander, 103 U.S. 522; Act March 3, 1885, c. 355, (23 St. p. 443;) Cross v. Burke, 146 U.S. 82, 87, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 22.
The sum in dispute on this record, exclusive of costs, is more than $1,000 and less than $5,000. If is well settled that our appellate jurisdiction. when dependent upon the sum or value really in dispute between the parties, is to be tested without regard to the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties. It is the direct effect of the judgment that can alone be considered. Mortgage Co. v. Gay, 145 U.S. 123, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 815; Washington & G. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U.S. 227, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 64.
This case does not come within either of the sections of the act of March 3, 1885, regulating appeals and writs of error from the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and the writ of error must therefore be dismissed.

## 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 Treaty Series

This series reproduces the texts of all treaties that were signed by the United States from 1776 to 1949. It was succeeded by the United States Treaties and Other International Agreements series (UST; 1950–1984, some 1949 treaties have their text here instead of USTS) which was then succeeded by the Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS; 1982–present, possibly started beforehand; this seems to be a looser classification system with no compilations, simply individual treaties and agreements).
See the LOC "United States Treaties and Other International Agreements" collection for more details.
| Volume | Notes |
| 1 (transcription project) | Multilateral treaties (1776-1917) |
| 2 (transcription project) | Multilateral treaties (1918-1930) |
| 3 (transcription project) | Multilateral treaties (1931-1945) |
| 4 (transcription project) | Multilateral treaties (1946-1949) |
| 5 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Afghanistan-Burma) |
| 6 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Canada-Czechoslovakia) |
| 7 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Denmark-France) |
| 8 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Germany-Iran) |
| 9 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Iraq-Muscat) |
| 10 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Nepal-Peru) |
| 11 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; Philippines-United Arab Republic) |
| 12 (transcription project) | Bilateral treaties (1776-1949; United Kingdom-Zanzibar) |
| 13 (transcription project) | General Index (1776-1949) |
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 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 546
United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch
Argued: March 7, 1946. --- Decided: March 25, 1946
Mr.Joseph C. Swidler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for petitioner.
Mr. McKinley Edwards, of Bryson City, N.C., for respondent Welch.
Mr. George H. Ward, of Asheville, N.C., for other respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 547 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BLACK 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. Waddell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 76
United States v. Waddell
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff.
Jos. W. Martin, for defendants.
MILLER, J.

## 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. Wade/Concurrence Clark

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Clark
* Concurrence/Dissents Black White Fortas
* Wikipedia article
Mr. Justice CLARK, concurring.
With reference to the lineup point involved in this case I cannot, for the life of me, see why a lineup is not a critical stage of the prosecution. Identification of the suspect-a prerequisite to establishment of guilt-occurs at this stage, and with Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), on the books, the requirement of the presence of counsel arises, unless waived by the suspect. I dissented in Miranda but I am bound by it now, as we all are. Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), precludes petitioner's claim of self-incrimination. I therefore join the opinion of the Court.
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. Wade

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup held after indictment. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Clark

## Concurrence/Dissents

    Black
    White
    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 218
United States v. Wade
Argued: Feb. 16, 1967. --- Decided: June 12, 1967
Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Weldon Holcomb, Tyler, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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. Waddill, Holland & Flinn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 353
United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn
Argued: Nov. 10, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1945
Mr. Paul A. Sweeney, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Rutledge C. Clement, of Danville, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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