OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Public Law 111-50

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, as the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building´´.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### Section 1. Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building.

    (a) Designation.—
       The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building´´.
    (b) References.—
       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building´´.
Approved August 19, 2009.

## Legislative History

* H.R. 774
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
   ** May 5, considered and passed House.
   ** Aug. 4, considered and passed Senate.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Public Law 111-54

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 41 Purdy Avenue in Rye, New York, as the ``Caroline O'Day Post Office Building´´.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### Section 1. Caroline O'Day Post Office Building.

    (a) Designation.—
       The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 41 Purdy Avenue in Rye, New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Caroline O'Day Post Office Building´´.
    (b) References.—
       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Caroline O'Day Post Office Building´´.
Approved August 19, 2009.

## Legislative History

* H.R. 1397
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
   ** May. 5, considered and passed House.
   ** Aug. 4, considered and passed Senate.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Public Law 111-43

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### Section 1. Additional Temporary Extension Authorization of Programs Under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

    (a) In General.—
       Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration´´, approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently amended by Section 1 of Public Law 111-10 (123 Stat. 990), is amended by striking ``July 31, 2009´´ each place it appears and inserting ``September 30, 2009´´.
    (b) Effective Date.—
       The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on July 30, 2009.
Approved July 31, 2009.

## Legislative History

* S. 1513
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
   ** July 24, considered and passed Senate.
   ** July 29, considered and passed House.

## See also

| Public Law 109-316 | Public Law 110-4 Public Law 110-57 Public Law 110-136 Public Law 110-235 | Public Law 111-10 Public Law 111-43 Public Law 111-66 Public Law 111-89 |
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Public Law 111-52

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2351 West Atlantic Boulevard in Pompano Beach, Florida, as the ``Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office Building´´.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### Section 1. Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office Building.

    (a) Designation.—
       The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2351 West Atlantic Boulevard in Pompano Beach, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office Building´´.
    (b) References.—
       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office Building´´.
Approved August 19, 2009.

## Legislative History

* H.R. 1271
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
   ** May. 5, considered and passed House.
   ** Aug. 4, considered and passed Senate.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Railroad Company v. McKinley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 147
Railroad Company v. McKinley
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. N. M. Hubbard for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. O. P. Shiras, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Railroad Company v. National Bank/Concurrence Bradley

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Clifford Bradley
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 14
Railroad Company v. National Bank
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY.
I concur in the judgment rendered in this case, and in most of the reasons given in the opinion. But, in reference to the consideration of the transfer of the note as collateral security, I do not regard the obligation assumed by the indorsee (the bank), to present the note for payment and give notice of non-payment, as the only, or the principal, consideration of such transfer. The true consideration was the debt due from the indorsers to the indorsee, and the obligation to pay or secure said debt. Had any other collateral security been given, as a mortgage, or a pledge of property, it would have been equally sustained by the consideration referred to; namely, the debt and the obligation to pay it or to secure its payment. If the indorsers had assigned a mortgage for that purpose, the title of the bank to hold the mortgage would have been indubitable. In that case prior equities of the mortgagor might have prevailed against the title of the bank; because a mortgage is not a commercial security, and its transfer for any consideration whatever does not cut off prior equities. But the bona fide transfer of commercial paper before maturity does cut off such equities; and every collateral is held by the creditor by such title and in such manner as appertain to its nature and qualities. Security for the payment of a debt actually owing is a good consideration, and sufficient to support a transfer of property. When such transfer is made for such purpose, it has due effect as a complete transfer, according to the nature and incidents of the property transferred. When it is a promissory note or bill of exchange, it has the effect of giving absolute title and of cutting off prior equities, provided the ordinary conditions exist to give it that effect. If not transferred before maturity or in due course of business, then, of course, it cannot have such effect. But I think it is well shown in the principal opinion that a transfer for the purpose of securing a debt is a transfer in due course. And that really ends the argument on the subject.
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
# Railroad Company v. Mississippi

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Miller
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 135
Railroad Company v. Mississippi
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. John A Campbell and Mr. Thomas L. Bayne for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Alexander M. Clayton, contra.
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
# Railway Company v. Alling Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company/Dissent Waite

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Waite
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 463
Railway Company v. Alling Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment in this case. In my opinion the grant of the right of way to the Denver and Rio Grande Company, contained in the act of June 8, 1872, is no more than a license to enter upon and use such of the public lands of the United States as should be unoccupied and not appropriated to other purposes when the permanent location of its road with a view to actual construction should be made. Words which, in a grant of land to aid in building a railroad, imply a present grant need not necessarily have that effect in a grant of right of way only.
I think, also, the Ca non City and San Juan Company made the first permanent location with a view to actual construction through the pass in controversy. Consequently it secured the preference of routes, subject to a reasonable use of the route it occupied, if necessary, by the Denver Company in common with itself.
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
# Railway Company v. Heck/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 120
Railway Company v. Heck
It does not appear from this record that any exceptions were taken in the progress of the trial to what was done by the court below. Nearly three weeks after the trial was concluded and a verdict rendered, a motion was made for a new trial, because of certain alleged errors in the charge; but it is nowhere shown that they were noted or brought to the attention of the court before the verdict. Certainly no exceptions were taken. A trial court may, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, grant a new trial, if convinced that its charge was wrong, even though its attention was not called to the error complained of before the case was finally submitted to the jury. But not so with us. Our power is confined to exceptions actually taken at the trial. The theory of a bill of exceptions is that it states what occurred while the trial was going on. Time is usually given to put what was done into an appropriate form for the record; but, unless objection was made and exception taken before the verdict, no case is presented for a review here of the rulings at the trial. This has been settled in this court since Walton v. United States, 9 Wheat. 651. The cases are numerous to that effect.
We have uniformly held that, as a motion for new trial in the courts of the United States is addressed to the discretion of the court that tried the cause, the action of that court in granting or refusing to grant such a motion cannot be assigned for error here. Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359; Insurance Company v. Barton, 13 id. 603.
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
# Railway Company v. B'Shears/Dissent Battle

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Battle
​BATTLE, J., dissenting. I do not concur with the court in the interpretation of the statute in question. ​It requires railroad companies, on the application of fifty citizens of any incorporated town to the proper officer, "to stop all trains—freight or passenger—at some point within the corporate limits of such town most convenient for the reception and handling and discharge of freight, and the reception and discharge of passengers, and the reception and delivery of the mails, and most convenient to accommodate the business of such town;" and then adds: "Provided, That before any town may or can insist upon and compel the stoppage of trains, as in this act provided, the corporate authorities of such town shall provide and make tender to such railroad companies sufficient means to defray the reasonable expenses of grading a switch or side track at such place of stopping for the use of such railroad company." Acts of 1873, pp. 169, 170. The object of this proviso was, I think, to relieve the railroad companies of any additional expense of grading a switch or side track to the convenient place in the town where they are required to stop their trains. Before a town can compel the stoppage of trains it must tender sufficient means to defray the reasonable expenses of grading, not laying, a switch or side track. If there is no grading to be done, no expense on that account can be incurred, and none, certainly, can be tendered or is required. The expense of laying or making the track which constitutes the switch, except grading, is imposed on the railroad companies.
In this case it is alleged, and not denied, that the railroad company has already constructed and in operation all the switches and side tracks necessary for the stopping of trains. No grading is necessary for that purpose. It would be folly to require a tender of means to defray an expense which does not and will not exist, in the event the petition of appellee be granted.
Wood, J., concurs with me.
# Railway Company v. Heck

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 120
Railway Company v. Heck
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. E. Walker for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. O. B. Sansum, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Railway Age Gazette

Previously named Railroad Age Gazette; renamed Railway Age in 1918. For the Railway Age Gazette, Mechanical Edition, see American Engineer and Railroad Journal.
* Volume 48 – January–June 1910 IA
* Volume 49 – July–December 1910 IA
* Volume 50 – January–June 1911 IA
* Volume 51 – July–December 1911 IA
* Volume 52 – January–June 1912 IA
* Volume 53 – July–December 1912 IA
* Volume 54 – January–June 1913 IA
* Volume 55 – July–December 1913 IA
* Volume 56 – January–June 1914 IA
* Volume 57 – July–December 1914 IA
* Volume 58 – January–June 1915 IA
* Volume 59 – July–December 1915 IA
* Volume 60 – January–June 1916
* Volume 61 – July–December 1916 IA
* Volume 62 – January–June 1917 IA
* Volume 63 – July–December 1917 IA
# Railway Age

First use 1876–1908, when it merged with Railroad Gazette to form Railroad Age Gazette. Renamed Railway Age Gazette in 1910; renamed Railway Age in 1918.

## 1918–present

* Volume 64 – January–June 1918 IA
* Volume 65 – July–December 1918 IA
* Volume 66 – January–June 1919 IA
* Volume 67 – July–December 1919 IA
* Volume 68 – January–June 1920 IA
* Volume 69 – July–December 1920 IA
* Volume 70 – January–June 1921 IA
* Volume 71 – July–December 1921 IA
* Volume 72 – January–June 1922 IA
* Volume 73 – July–December 1922 IA
# Proclamation 8810

Presidential Proclamation -- Law Day, U.S.A., 2012 LAW DAY, U.S.A., 2012 - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower established Law Day in 1958, he proclaimed it "fitting that the people of this Nation should remember with pride and vigilantly guard the great heritage of liberty, justice, and equality under law which our forefathers bequeathed to us." Today, we celebrate that enduring legacy and renew our commitment to a democracy sustained by the rule of law.
This year's Law Day theme, "No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom," recalls the historic role our courts have played in protecting the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans. Our courts are the guarantors of civil justice, social order, and public safety, and we must do everything we can to enable their critical work. The courthouse doors must be open and the necessary services must be in place to allow all litigants, judges, and juries to operate efficiently. Likewise, we must ensure that access to justice is not an abstract theory, but a concrete commitment that delivers the promise of counsel and assistance for all who seek it.
Today, let us reflect upon the role generations of legal and judicial professionals have played in building an America worthy of the ideals that inspired its founding. The timeless principles of equal protection and due process remain at the heart of our democracy, and on Law Day, we recommit to upholding them not just in our time, but for all time.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87-20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all Americans to acknowledge the importance of our Nation's legal and judicial systems with appropriate ceremonies and activities, and to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.
BARACK OBAMA
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