OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States ex rel Kinney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 283
United States ex rel Kinney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
Argued: December 4, 1911. --- Decided: December 18, 1911
The trial court instructed a verdict for the defendant, and the court below affirmed its action. The suit was to recover upon the bond of a clerk of a circuit court. 186 Fed. 477. We think a motion to affirm must prevail.
All the errors relied upon complain of a refusal to grant a motion of the plaintiff for judgment because of the insufficiency of 'an affidavit of defense' and of various rulings made at the trial. Although the motion for judgment was denied, its merits were not passed upon, since the effect of the ruling was simply to postpone consideration of the subject until the trial, and therefore the exception, which was formally allowed, was simply 'to the refusal by the court to decide the issue of law raised by plaintiff's motion for judgment,' etc. But afterwards the defendant filed formal pleas to the statement of plaintiff's claim and joined issue thereon. As the ruling left it open to raise the question presented by the motion, it follows that the mere order of postponement did not prejudice and cannot possibly constitute reversible error. As to the contentions which relate to occurrences at the trial, they cannot be considered, as the record contains no bill of exceptions. The paper in the record styled 'Exceptions to the Charge to Jury,' initialed 'J. B. McP., Trial Judge,' and signed by the plaintiff, is not a bill of exceptions (Origet v. United States, 125 U.S. 243, 31 L. ed. 745, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 846), but if it were to be treated as a bill of exceptions, as all the matters therein referred to depend for their solution upon an examination of the evidence, which is not in the record, it follows that we have no means of determining whether reversible error arose from an action of the court on any of the subjects to which the paper refers. This being the case, it becomes our duty to affirm.
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 Louisville Cement Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 638
United States ex rel Louisville Cement Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Argued: March 14, 1918. --- Decided: April 29, 1918
Messrs. J. Van Dyke Norman, of Louisville, Ky., and Frank Lyon and George H. Lamar, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Charles W. Needham, of Washington, D. C., and Joseph W. Folk, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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 Brown v. Lane

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 598
United States ex rel Brown v. Lane
Argued: February 24, 1914. --- Decided: March 9, 1914
Messrs. Andrew Wilson, Albert L. Wilson, and James P. Schick for petitioner.
No appearance for Franklin K. Lane.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Chief Justice white:

## 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 Kinney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 283
United States ex rel Kinney v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
Argued: December 4, 1911. --- Decided: December 18, 1911
Mr. Robert D. Kinney, in propria persona, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Bayard Henry and Thomas Stokes for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Chief Justice White:

## 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 Louisiana v. Hon Aleck Boarman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 397
United States ex rel Louisiana v. Hon Aleck Boarman
Argued: May 3, 1917. --- Decided: June 4, 1917
Mr. Harry Gamble and Mr. A. V. Coco, Attorney General of Louisiana, for petitioner.
Messrs. Henry Bernstein and Willard F. Keeney for respondent.
Mr. Justice Clarke 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 – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense/I. Vietnam and the U.S., 1940–1950

​I Vietnam and the U.S., 1940–1950(1 Vol.)
A. U.S. Policy, 1940–1950
B. The Character and Power of the Viet Minh
C. Ho Chi Minh: Asian Tito?
UNITED STATES - VIETNAM RELATIONS
1945 - 1967
* VIETNAM TASK FORCE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SET #13
I VIETNAM AND THE UNITED STATES 1940 – 1950
Sec Def Cont Nr. X-0295
​PART I.
VIETNAM AND THE UNITED STATES 1940 – 1950
Foreword
This portion of the study treats U.S. policy towards Vietnam in the decade of World War II and its aftermath. It is subdivided into three essays. Section A describes U.S. policy toward Indochina, and the developing conflict between France and the Viet Minh as viewed from Washington. Section B analyzes the character and power of the Viet Minh and probes the role of Vietnamese communists within the Viet Minh. Section C discusses Ho Chi Minh's political development to assess his potentiality for adopting neutrality in the East-West confrontation. Each monograph is supported by the maps and charts tabulated below.
Section A – U.S. Policy, 1940–1950 Section B – The Character and Power of the Viet Minh Section C – Ho Chi Minh: Asian Tito?
Maps and Charts (Blue Tabs)
Cochinchina, Annam, Tonkin France–Vietnam Relations Vietnam Nationalist Party Communist Party, 1921–1931 Communist Party, 1931–1945 Politics in North Vietnam, 1945 Vietnamese Governments, 1945–1949 Viet Political Movements, 1947–1950 Extent Viet Minh Control, 1949 Ho Chi Minh Chronology
# United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense/II. U.S. Involvement in the Franco–Viet Minh War, 1950–1954

​II U.S. Involvement in the Franco–Viet Minh War, 1950–1954(1 Vol.)
A. U.S., France and Vietnamese Nationalism
B. Toward a Negotiated Settlement
UNITED STATES - VIETNAM RELATIONS
1945 - 1967
* VIETNAM TASK FORCE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SET #13
II U. S. INVOLVEMENT IN THE FRANCO–VIET MINH WAR 1950 – 1954
Sec Def Cont Nr. X-0295
Foreword
This portion of the study treats U.S. policy towards the war in Indochina from the U.S. decision to recognize the Vietnamese Nationalist regime of the Emperor Bao Dai in February, 1950, through the U.S. deliberations on military intervention in late 1953 and early 1954. Section A examines the triangular relationship of France, the U.S., and the Bao Dai regime. Section B analyzes the intervention issue, end the antecedents to the Geneva Conference.
A. United States, France, and Vietnamese Nationalism
B. Toward a Negotiated Settlement
# United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Union Pacific Railway 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. Union Pacific Railway Company (148 U.S. 562)
* United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company (160 U.S. 1)
* United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company (165 U.S. 482)
* United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company (168 U.S. 505)
See also Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States.
# United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (98 U.S. 569)/Dissent Swayne

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Haynes Swayne
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 569
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
I concur in the opinion, so far as it relates to the constitutional validity of the act of Congress which lies at the foundation of the case. In the residue I cannot concur.

## 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. Union Pacific Railway Company (160 U.S. 1)

United States Supreme Court
160 U.S. 1
United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Laurence Maxwell, Jr., Sol. Gen., for the United States.
Rush Taggart and John F. Dillon, for appellees.
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
# Who's Who in the Far East/BOYER, Mourice Marius

Layout 2
​ BOYER, Mourice Marius (SAIGON), President du Tribunal de Ire Instance; b. Fev. 17, 1853. Entree I'Administration de la Justice, Sept. 21, 1888; President, Janv. 15, 1904. Address: Saigon, Cochin-China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BRADDEL, Robert Wallace Glen Lee

Layout 2
​ BRADDEL, Robert Wallace Glen Lee (SINGAPORE), Barrister-at Law; b. March 6, 1859; m Nov. 21, 1883 Mary Lawrence, 4th d. of Rev. T. Smith of Brailes, Warwickshire. Eihic.: Brighton College; Worcester College, Oxford. Has practised at Straits' Bar since Dec., 1882. Address: "Woodleigh," Sirangoon Road, Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BREWIN, Hon. Arthur Winbolt

Layout 2
​ BREWIN, Hon. Arthur Winbolt (HONGKONG), Registrar General and Member, Legislative Council; b. June 12, 1967. Educ.: Winchester. Arrived in Colony, 1888; appointed Justice of the Peace, 1894; acting assistant Registrar-General, 1895; acting Inspector of Schools, April, 1887; appointment confirmed Aug. 1897; acting Registrar-General, 1898 to 1899; appointment confirmed, 1901. Club: Hongkong. Address: Registrar General's Department, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BRADDON, Dr. William Leonard

Layout 2
​ BRADDON, Dr. William Leonard (SEREMBAN), M.B., B.S., Lond., F.R.C.S., Eng.; State Surgeon; b. May 29, 1862; i. Oct. 13, 1897, Marion, 3rd (7. of late H. C. Philpott. Educ.: Reading School; Owen's College; Guy's Hospital; Gold Medallist and Scholar, London University; Gold Medallist, Guy's-Hospital. In Burmah 1888; joined Selangor service, Dec., 1888; State Surgeon, Negri Sembilan, since 1891.. Publications: "The Haomodynamics of Cerebral Haemorrhage,' in "Lancet" 1885; "The Mycoid Body in Remittent Fevers," in " Indian Medical Gazette," 1903; " The Cause and Prevention of Beri-beri," 1906. Club: The Golfers. Address: Seremban, Negri Sembilan, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BRADY, Herbert Francis

Layout 2
​ BRADY, Herbert Francis (FOOCHOW) H.B.M. Consul. Appointed Student Interpreter in China, March, 1876; acting Consul at Kiukiang, 1880 to 1881; acting Vice-Consul at Whampoa, 1886 and 1887; discharged duties of Accountant to Legation 1887, 1888, 1889 and 1891; promoted 1st Assistant, Oct. 1, 1891; assistant Chinese Secretary, 1892; acting Consul at Ichaug, 1894 to 1895; acting Consul at Kiukiang,. 1895 to 1896; at Chinkiang, Aug. to Nov., 1896; at Wuhu from Dec., 1896-to Jan. 1897; acting Vice-Consul at Shanghai, 1897; promoted Consul at Samshui, Sept. 27, 1897; transferred to Chungking, Nov. 21, 1900; to Chefoo, July 1, 1901; acting Consul-General at Haukow, 1901; Consulate, Foochow, 19C6. Address: H.B.M. Consulate, Foochow, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BREDON, Sir Robert Edward

Layout 2
​ BREDON, Sir Robert Edward (PEKING), K.C.M.G.; M.A., M.B., M.Ch.; Deputy Inspector General, Chinese ​Customs; b. Feb. 4, 1846: m. Sept. 3, 1879. Educ.: Private School; Royal School, Dungannon, Ireland; Trinity College, Dublin; Graduated University of Dublin. Competed for Medical appointment in H.M's Service and obtained 1st. place; appointed Assistant Surgeon, 97th. Regiment (now Royal West Kent Regiment) 1867; retired 1873, being then in West Indies; joined Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs as Chief Secretary, Inspectorate General, 1873: Commissioner, Chefoo, 1875; Ningpo, 1875; Canton, 1876, Peking (Chief Secretary), 1877; in chargelnepectorateGeneral, 1877-78; P eking (Chief Secretary), 1878; Commissioner, Hankow, 188C; Shanghai, 1890; Peking (Chief Secretary), 1893; Commissoner, Hankow, 18C6; Commissioner, Canton, 1896; retired and rejoined, 1897; Deputy Inspector General, Peking, 1897; Shanghai 1900; Peking, 1904; was present with family in British Legation, Peking, during siege and bombardment, 1900; attached, 1902-04 to Chinese Commisson for revision of British and other Commercial Treaties. Decorations: Officer of Legion of Ho nour (France); Commander order of Olaf (Norway); 2nd class Sacred Treasure (Japan); K.C.M.G. (Great Britain): 2nd Division 2nd class Double Dragon (China), 2nd class Crown of Prussia, with star; China Medal with Defence of Legations clasp. Publications: Various papers in Customs publications on Chinese railway and financial questions, including some in Chinese. Clubs: Shanghai Country; Shanghai Race, Shanghai; Peking; Junior United Service, London. Address: Inspectorate General of Customs, Peking, China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BRESLAND, Charles William

Layout 2
​ BRESLAND, Charles William (BATANG PATANG), B.A.; F.M.S. Civil Service; b. April 10,1878. Educ.: Dublin University. Appointed cadet, 1901; has acted as District Officer at Kinta and Tapah; District Officer at Batang Patang. Address: Batang Padang, Perak, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BREWITT-TAYLOR, Charles Henry

Layout 2
​ BREWITT-TAYLOR, Charles Henry (see: TAYLOR, CHARLES HENRY BREWITT-).
# Who's Who in the Far East/BREWSTER, Edward John

Layout 2
​ BREWSTER, Edward John (KINTA), District Officer; b. Jan. 24, 1861. Educ.: Brewood Grammar School; Cheltenham. Joined Federated Malay States Civil Service as assistant District Officer, Matang, Perak, 1878; acting District Officer, Krian, 1883-1884; ditto, Larut, 1885; ditto, Kiuta, 1888; District Officer, Krian, 1889; Magistrate, Krian, 1889; State Commissioner of Lands ami Registrar of Mines, Jan., ​1892; acting State Auditor, April, 1893; District Magistrate, Lower Perak, Aug., 1843. Club: Sports, London. Address: Kinta, Perak, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/BRINKLEY, Captain F.

Layout 2
​ BRINKLEY, Captain F. (TOKYO), Proprietor and Editor of "Japan Mail," Yokohama; b. 1841. Attached to Legation Guards, Tokyo, J867; resigned from Royal Artillery, 1871, and appointed principal instructor, Marine Artillery College, Tokyo; Professor Mathematics at Imperial Engineering College, Tokyo; acquired "Japan Mail," 1881; is Foreign Advisor to Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Tokyo correspondent of "Times,' Lond. Decoration: 3rd class of the Order of the Sacred Treasure. Address: 3, Hiro-go Azabu, Tokyo, Japan.
# What Will He Do With It? (Belford)/Book 3

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
# What Will He Do With It? (Belford)/Book 2/Chapter 8

CHAPTER VIII.
New imbroglio in that ever-recurring, never-to-be-settled question, "What will he do with it?"
With a disappointed glare, and a baffled shrug of the shoulder, Mr. Darrell turned from the dining-room, and passed up the stairs to Lionel's chamber, opened the door quickly, and extending his hand, said, in that tone which had disarmed the wrath of ambitious factions, and even (if fame lie not) once seduced from the nostile Treasury-bench a placeman's vote, "I must have hurt your feelings, and I come to beg your pardon!"
But before this time Lionel's proud heart, in which ungrateful anger could not long find room, had smitten him for so ill a return to well-meant and not indelicate kindness, And, his wounded egotism appeased by its very outburst, he had called to mind Fairthorn's allusions to Darrell's secret griefs—griefs that must have been indeed stormy so to have revulsed the currents of a life. And, despite those griefs, the great man had spoken playfully to him—playfully in order to make light of obligations. So when Guy Darrell now extended that hand, and stooped to that apology, Lionel was fairly overcome. Tears, before refused, now found irresistible way. The hand he could not take, but, yielding to his yearning impulse, he threw his arms fairly round his host's neck, leaned his young cheek upon that granite breast, and sobbed out incoherent words of passionate repentance—honest, venerating affection. Darrell's face changed, looking for a moment wondrous soft—and then, as by an effort of supreme self-control, it became severely placid. He did not return that embrace, but certainly he in no way repelled it; nor did he trust himself to speak till the boy exhausted the force of his first feelings, and had turned to dry his tears.
Then he said, with a soothing sweetness: "Lionel Haughton, you have the heart of a gentleman that can never listen to a frank apology for unintentional wrong, but what it springs forth ​to take the blame to itself, and return apology ten-fold. Enough! A mistake, no doubt, on both sides. More time must elapse before either can truly say that he does not like the other. Meanwhile," added Darrell, with almost a laugh—and that concluding query showed that even on trifles the man was bent upon either forcing or stealing his own will upon others—"meanwhile, must I send away the tailor?"
I need not repeat Lionel's answer.
# United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense/IV. Evolution of the War

​IV.A Evolution of the War (26 Vols.)
U.S. MAP for Diem: The Eisenhower Commitments, 1954–1950 (5 Vols.)
1. NATO and SEATO: A Comparison
UNITED STATES - VIETNAM RELATIONS
1945 - 1967
* VIETNAM TASK FORCE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SET #13
IV.A.1 NATO AND SEATO: A COMPARISON
Sec Def Cont Nr. X-0295
# United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 564
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO.
Argued: April 27, 1960. --- Decided: June 20, 1960
Mr. David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John S.C.arriger, Chattanooga, Tenn., for respondent.
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced by Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

## 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–Japan–Republic of Korea Trilateral National Security Advisors’ Press Statement

Published 2021-04-02
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan of the United States, National Security Secretariat Secretary General Shigeru Kitamura of Japan, and National Security Office Director Suh Hoon of the Republic of Korea (ROK) met for talks on April 2, 2021 at the United States Naval Academy to consult on the United States’ review of its North Korea policy and to discuss issues of common concern including Indo Pacific security. The national security advisors reaffirmed their steadfast commitment to working together to protect and advance their shared security goals.
The national security advisors shared their concerns about North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and reaffirmed their commitment to address and resolve these issues through concerted trilateral cooperation towards denuclearization. They agreed on the imperative for full implementation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions by the international community, including North Korea, preventing proliferation, and cooperating to strengthen deterrence and maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. They discussed the importance of reuniting separated Korean families, and the swift resolution of the abductions issue. The United States reaffirmed its steadfast alliance commitments to both the ROK and Japan; Japan and the ROK underscored the importance of their bilateral ties and trilateral cooperation to the security of our citizens, the region, and the world.
The national security advisors discussed the value of working together to address other leading challenges, including COVID-19, working to prevent future pandemics, combatting climate change and promoting an immediate return to democracy in Myanmar. They agreed to strengthen their ties, and to advance a common vision grounded in our shared democratic values.
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
# Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas (212 U.S. 112)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 112
Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas (212 U.S. 112)
Argued: October 30, November 2, 3, 1908. --- Decided: January 18, 1909
Messrs. Moorfield Storey, E. B. Perkins, H. S. Priest, J. L. Thorndike, and J. D. Johnson for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. G. W. Allen, R. L. Batts, Robert Vance Davidson, Jewel P. Lightfoot, John W. Brady, T. W. Gregory, and Messrs.
Allen & Hart 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
# Waterville v. Van Slyke

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 699
Waterville v. Van Slyke
Argued: March 1, 1886. ---
E. Stillings, for plaintiff in error.
S. E. Brown, for defendant in error.
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
# Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas (212 U.S. 86)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 86
Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas (212 U.S. 86)
Argued: October 30, November 2, 3, 1908. --- Decided: January 18, 1909
Messrs. Moorfield Storey, E. B. Perkins, H. S. Priest, J. L. Thorndike, and J. D. Johnson for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 87-92 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. G. W. Allen, R. L. Batts, Robert Vance Davidson, Jewel P. Light-foot, John W. Brady, T. W. Gregory, and Messrs. Allen & Hart for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 93-95 intentionally omitted]
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