OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Josephus Daniels/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 218
United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Josephus Daniels
Argued: November 14, 1913. --- Decided: December 1, 1913
This is a petition for a mandamus directing the Secretary of the Navy to deliver the United States cruiser Boston to the petitioner. The petition alleges that after survey, condemnation, and appraisal the cruiser was stricken from the Naval Register under the act of August 5, 1882, chap. 391, § 2, 22 Stat. at L. 296, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 1058; that thereafter the Secretary of the Navy advertised for proposals of purchase under the act of March 3, 1883, chap. 141, 22 Stat. at L. 599, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 1059; that the petitioner bid more than the appraised value, sending a certified check for the whole sum bid; that when the bids were opened on the day fixed, the petitioner's was the highest, but that the Secretary refused to deliver the vessel, and sent back the check, which the petitioner holds subject to the Secretary's order. The answer admits the facts, but sets up that the bid is not an acceptance of an offer, but is itself only an offer, subject to be accepted or not, at the discretion of the Secretary, and that the Secretary never accepted the petitioner's bid, the government having decided to lend the cruiser to the governor of Oregon for use by the naval militia of that state. The petitioner demurred, but the petition was dismissed on the ground that the discretion of the Secretary was not ended by the receipt and opening of the bids, even though they satisfied all the conditions prescribed. 37 App. D. C. 282.
We see no sufficient reason for throwing doubt upon this premise for the decision, but there is another that comes earlier in point of logic. The United States is the owner, in possession of the vessel. It cannot be interfered with behind its back, and, as it cannot be made a party, this suit must fail. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 40 L. ed. 599, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601, 606, 48 L. ed. 1134, 1137, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820; Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60, 69, 50 L. ed. 935, 938, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 568; Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 473, 476, 50 L. ed. 1113, 1114, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667.
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 ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 72
United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy
Argued: March 4, 1957. --- Decided: March 25, 1957
Mr. Jay Nicholas Long, New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Maurice A. Roberts, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Company of New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
200 U.S. 197
United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Company of New York
Argued: November 3, 1905. --- Decided: January 2, 1906
Mr. Albert W. Buddress for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 197-199 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Henry C. Willcox for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day 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 ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 72
United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy
Argued: March 4, 1957. --- Decided: March 25, 1957
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
This case, on its face, seems to be an instance of a deportation which would 'result in serious economic detriment to a citizen,' as those words are used in § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917.
The citizen is a five-year-old boy who was born here and who, therefore, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the Fourteenth Amendment bestows on every citizen. A five-year-old boy cannot enjoy the educational, spiritual, and economic benefits which our society affords unless he is with his parents. His parents are lawabiding and self-supporting. From this record it appears that they are good members of the community. They do not seem to have done anything illegal or antisocial that should penalize their American son.
It would seem, therefore, that the maintenance of this young American citizen in a home in America is the way to effectuate the policy of the 1917 Act.
The Board did not treat the case that way. Instead it imported into the 1917 Act the standard prescribed by the 1952 Act, which concededly is inapplicable here. That was the error which led Judge Frank to dissent below. 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 705, 709, 710. I think Judge Frank was right. Prevailing congressional policy on the approval or disapproval of suspension orders in nowise affects the standards prescribed for administrative action under the 1917 Act.
The Board erroneously followed irrelevant standards instead of exercising its discretion under the applicable statute, viz. § 19(c) of the 1917 Act.

## 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. Wallace & Tiernan Company (336 U.S. 793)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 793
United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Company
Argued: March 29, 1949. --- Decided: May 2, 1949
Appeal from the United States District Court for Rhode Island.
Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City, for appellees.
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. Walker (109 U.S. 258)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 258
United States v. Walker
The declaration contained two counts. The first count set out the obligation of the bond without stating the condition. The second count stated the obligation of the bond and averred the condition as above set forth, and assigned as breach the failure of Charlotte L. Ames to pay over to Wilson, the administrator de bonis non, the said sum of $34,876.75.
The defendant pleaded to the first count the condition of the bond and its performance. To the second count he pleaded, first, 'that by the condition of the bond the defendant, as surety, became liable to the plaintiff, as administrator de bonis non, only for such of the assets of the estate as had not been converted into money by the said administrators or the survivor, and the defendant says that the assets of said estate consisted wholly of a claim or chose in action owing by the government of the United States, and that the money claimed in this action is the proceeds of said claim or chose in action collected from the government, and thereby converted into money,' etc. The second plea to the second count averred that the defendant, as surety as aforesaid, was liable only for such assets of said estate as had not been administered by said administrators or the survivor, and that the money claimed in this action is for assets which had been administered before the removal of said surviving administrator from office, and the appointment of plaintiff. Both these pleas also aver that defendant was not a party to the proceeding in which the order to pay over was made and was served with process therein, nor did he voluntarily appear.
In his replication to the first plea (the plea of condition performed) the plaintiff set out three breaches, each of them consisting in the failure of the administratrix to pay over the money to her successor in compliance with an order of the court. The plaintiff demurred to the remaining pleas. The defendant demurred to the replication to the first plea. Issue was joined on both demurrers, and the court, in general term, overruled the plaintiff's demurrer, sustained that filed by the defendant, and entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon sued out this writ of error.
A. S. Worthington, for plaintiff in error.
W. D. Davidge, for defendant in error.
WOODS, 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. Wallace

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 398
United States v. Wallace
Argued: January 18, 1886. ---
The judgment appealed from in the case was rendered in favor of the appellee, who was plaintiff below, for the sum of $1,032, upon the following finding of facts reported by the court of claims: '(1) The claimant, John H. Wallace, was a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Alabama from January 16, 1882, to November 22, 1883. (2) October 4, 1881, the circuit court of the United States for said district, in compliance with a request by the attorney general, made an order requiring, among other things, that each of the commissioners of said court should keep a docket, in which he should enter, on the day the transaction should occur, the issuance of each warrant, the name of the person upon whose complaint and request the same was issued, the nature of the offense, and the name of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for service, together with the proceedings had under said warrant; that there should also be entered therein the names of the witnesses present and examined, and their fees, the name of the guard, if any, and his fees, and also the marshal's and deputy marshal's fees, together with the mileage and expenses allowed by law, and the said order was continued of force. (3) From the said January 16, 1882, to November 22, 1883, petitioner, as such commissioner, issued warrants in three hundred and seventy-six cases, in three hundred and twenty-eight of which issue was joined and testimony taken; and in forty-eight of which issue was not joined, the defendant was discharged, and no testimony taken; and he duly made his docket entries in each and in all of said cases as required by said order. (4) His accounts for fees for keeping said docket were duly verified by oath, and presented to the said court, in presence of the district attorney, and approved by the court, and an order approving the same, as being in accordance to law and just, duly entered upon the records of the said court. In said accounts, as approved by the court, he was allowed a fee of $3 in each case where issue was joined and test mony taken, and $1 where issue was not joined and the defendant was discharged. (5) His accounts therefor were duly presented for payment to the accounting officers of the treasury, together with the order of court approving the same, and payment thereof was refused by them.'
Sol. Gen. Goode, for appellant.
Chas. C. Lancaster and Chas. E. Mayer, for appellee.
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. Walker

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Walker."
* 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. Walker (63 U.S. 299)
* United States v. Walker (109 U.S. 258)
See also Walker v. United States.
# United States v. Walsh

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
331 U.S. 432
United States v. Walsh
Argued: April 29, 1947. --- Decided: May 19, 1947
On appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
Mr. Robert S. Erdahl, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Eugene W. Miller, of San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
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
# United States v. Wallace/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 398
United States v. Wallace
Argued: January 18, 1886. ---
It is provided in section 847, Rev. St., regulating the fees of commissioners: 'For issuing any warrant or writ, and for any other service, the same compensation as is allowed to clerks for like services.' Section 828, Rev. St., provides that the clerk be allowed: 'For making dockets and indexes, taxing costs, and all other services on the trial or argument of a cause where issue is joined and testimony given, $3;' and 'for making dockets and indexes, taxing costs, and other services in a cause which is dismissed or dis continued, or where judgment or decree is made without issue, $1.'
It was not disputed by the accounting officers of the treasury department, nor by the solicitor general in argument, that the commissioner was legally bound, under the order of the circuit court, to render the services charged for in keeping the dockets required, nor that he is entitled to compensation therefor; but it is insisted that he ought not to be allowed the compensation demanded, because the services rendered in keeping his docket are not in all particulars like services to those rendered by clerks in keeping dockets, and that, consequently, his compensation is fully covered by paragraph 8 of section 828, which allows, for making entries, 'for each folio, 15 cents.' This view is met by the court of claims in the following extract from its opinion: 'The phrase 'like services' does not necessarily mean 'identical with,' for by such a construction the compensation allowed to commissioner 'for any other service' would be defeated because of the subject-matter of the duties of the commissioner and the clerk being somewhat different; but the statute must receive a reasonable construction, and where the service of the clerk bears a substantial resemblance to the duty performed by the commissioner, then, under section 847, the commissioner would be entitled to the compensation allowed by law to the clerk, it being in legal substance a 'like service."
The compensation of 15 cents for each folio, supposed to embrance this service, is given 'for entering any return, rule, order, continuance, judgment, decree, or recognizance, or drawing any bond, or making any record certificate, return or report.' Clearly, this service has no likeness to that of keeping a docket, while the keeping of a docket by the commissioner is a like service to the keeping of a docket by the clerk, although the docket entries to be made by each may differ.
The judgment of the court of claims is 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 Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 2/Section 116

From MegaLaw. Version existing before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541).: CURRENT VERSION
In all actions, suits, or proceedings under this title, except when brought by or against the United States or any officer thereof, full costs shall be allowed, and the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.

## Amendment history

Section 116 was added by the Act of July 30, 1947 (c. 391, 61 Stat. 652) which codified the Copyright Act of 1909 (Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075). It was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541) with effect from January 1, 1978. [[[../../../Chapter 1/Section 116|CURRENT VERSION]]]
# United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 2/Section 108

From MegaLaw. Version existing before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541).: CURRENT VERSION
Any and all articles prohibited importation by this title which are brought into the United States from any foreign country (except in the mails) shall be seized and forfeited by like proceedings as those provided by law for the seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States in violation of the customs revenue laws. Such articles when forfeited shall be destroyed in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury or the court, as the case may be, shall direct: Provided, however, That all copies of authorized editions of copyright books imported in the mails or otherwise in violation of the provisions of this title may be exported and returned to the country of export whenever it is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in a written application, that such importation does not involve willful negligence or fraud.

## Amendment history

Section 108 was added by the Act of July 30, 1947 (c. 391, 61 Stat. 652) which codified the Copyright Act of 1909 (Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075). It was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541) with effect from January 1, 1978. [[[../../../Chapter 1/Section 108|CURRENT VERSION]]]
# United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 2/Section 114

From MegaLaw. Version existing before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541).: CURRENT VERSION
The orders, judgments, or decrees of any court mentioned in section 1338 of Title 28 arising under the copyright laws of the United States may be reviewed on appeal in the manner and to the extent now provided by law for the review of cases determined in said courts, respectively.

## Amendment history

Section 114 was added by the Act of July 30, 1947 (c. 391, 61 Stat. 652) which codified the Copyright Act of 1909 (Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075). It was amended by the Act of October 31, 1951 (c. 655, 65 Stat. 717), § 17. It was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541) with effect from January 1, 1978. [[[../../../Chapter 1/Section 114|CURRENT VERSION]]]
# United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 2/Section 115

From MegaLaw. Version existing before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541).: CURRENT VERSION
(a) Criminal proceedings.—No criminal proceedings shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless the same is commenced within three years after the cause of action arose.
(b) Civil actions.—No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless the same is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

## Amendment history

Section 115 was added by the Act of July 30, 1947 (c. 391, 61 Stat. 652) which codified the Copyright Act of 1909 (Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075). It was amended by Public Law 85-313 (Sept. 7, 1957, 71 Stat. 633), § 1. It was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541) with effect from January 1, 1978. CURRENT VERSION
# United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 2/Section 104

From MegaLaw. Version existing before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541).: CURRENT VERSION
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person who willfully and for profit shall infringe any copyright secured by this title, or who shall knowingly and willfully aid or abet such infringement, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not exceeding one year or by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or both, in the discretion of the court: Provided, however, That nothing in this title shall be so construed as to prevent the performance of religious or secular works such as oratorios, cantatas, masses, or octavo choruses by public schools, church choirs, or vocal societies, rented, borrowed, or obtained from some public library, public school, church choir, school choir, or vocal society, provided the performance is given for charitable or educational purposes and not for profit.
(b) Any person who willfully and for profit shall infringe any copyright provided by section 1(f) of this title, or who should knowingly and willfully aid or abet such infringement, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, for the first offense and shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both for any subsequent offense. [July 30, 1947, c.391, 61 Stat. 662; Dec. 31, 1974, Pub.L. 93-573, Title I, § 102, 88 Stat. 1873.]

## Amendment history

Section 104 was added by the Act of July 30, 1947 (c. 391, 61 Stat. 652) which codified the Copyright Act of 1909 (Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075). It was amended by Public Law 93-573 (Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1873), § 102. It was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541) with effect from January 1, 1978. [[[../../../Chapter 1/Section 104|CURRENT VERSION]]]
# United States Code/Title 17/1976-10-18/Chapter 2/Section 109

From MegaLaw. Version existing before the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541).: CURRENT VERSION
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General are hereby empowered and required to make and enforce individually or jointly such rules and regulations as shall prevent the importation into the United States of articles prohibited importation by this title, and may require, as conditions precedent to exclusion of any work in which copyright is claimed, the copyright proprietor or any person claiming actual or potential injury by reason of actual or contemplated importations of copies of such work to file with the Post Office Department or the Treasury Department a certificate of the Register of Copyrights that the provisions of section 13 of this title have been fully complied with, and to give notice of such compliance to postmasters or to customs officers at the ports of entry in the United States in such form and accompanied by such exhibits as may be deemed necessary for the practical and efficient administration and enforcement of the provisions of sections 106 and 107 of this title.

## Amendment history

Section 109 was added by the Act of July 30, 1947 (c. 391, 61 Stat. 652) which codified the Copyright Act of 1909 (Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075). It was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-553, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541) with effect from January 1, 1978. [[[../../../Chapter 1/Section 109|CURRENT VERSION]]]