OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Smith

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Smith."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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. Smith (18 U.S. 153), ( 5 L.Ed. 57 ), ( 5 Wheat. 153 )
* United States v. Smith (75 U.S. 587), ( 19 L.Ed. 506 ), ( 8 Wall. 587 )
* United States v. Smith (94 U.S. 214), ( 24 L.Ed. 115 )
* United States v. Smith (95 U.S. 536), ( 24 L.Ed. 517 )
* United States v. Smith (105 U.S. 620),
* United States v. Smith (124 U.S. 525),
* United States v. Smith (158 U.S. 346),
* United States v. Smith (197 U.S. 386),
* United States v. Smith (256 U.S. 11),
* United States v. Smith (286 U.S. 6),
* United States v. Smith (331 U.S. 469),
* United States v. Smith (342 U.S. 225),
* United States v. Smith (499 U.S. 160), ( 113 L.Ed.2d 134 ), ( 111 S.Ct. 1180 )
# United States v. Innerarity/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
86 U.S. 595
United States v. Innerarity
It appears that the allegations of the petition were made in ignorance of the facts, and that Innerarity really had no claim in law or in equity to the land described. This necessarily disposes of the case as to his heirs.
The attempt to set up a claim under this petition or a supplemental petition by Innerarity's heirs in favor of the heirs of John Watkins, cannot be sustained. It does not appear that Watkins derived title from Innerarity, or that Innerarity ever had any title. The case is simply this: Innerarity's heirs have filed their petition in time, but have no title. Watkins's heirs have a title, but have not filed a petition for its allowance. Watkins's title cannot be interposed by the present petitioners. Such practice is unknown. If a suit be commenced by A. to recover land or money, he failing on the merits, cannot bring into his suit a new plaintiff, especially one whose action, if then commenced, would be barred by the statute of limitations. If otherwise, the same suit can be continued indefinitely, constantly making new plaintiffs, until some one shall be found who has a meritorious claim. It would be a practical abrogation of the limitation of the statute. The act of 1867 has been further extended, and the heirs of Watkins must make an original application in their own names. We understand the case of United States v. Patterson to be a decisive authority against the present claim.
DECREE REVERSED, and the case remitted to the District Court of Louisiana, with directions to
DISMISS THE PETITION.

## Notes

* ↑ 15 Howard, 12.
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. Insley/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
130 U.S. 263
United States v. Insley

## 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. International Boxing Club of New York

United States v. International Boxing Club of New York (348 U.S. 236, 1955), often referred to as International Boxing Club or just International Boxing, was an antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. By a 7-2 margin, the justices ruled that the exemption it had previously upheld for Major League Baseball was peculiar and unique to that sport and that it did not apply to boxing. Since it met the definition of interstate commerce, the government could therefore proceed with a trial to prove IBCNY and the other defendants had conspired to monopolize the market for championship boxing in the United States. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Minton
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 236
United States v. International Boxing Club of New York
Argued: Nov. 10, 1954. --- Decided: Jan 31, 1955
Mr.Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Messrs. Whitney North Seymour, Charles H. Watson, New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Manuel Lee Robbins, New York City, for New York State Athletic Commn. amicus curiae.
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. Halsey Stuart & Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 451
United States v. Halsey Stuart & Company
Argued: Dec. 11, 1935. --- Decided: Dec 23, 1935
Defendants were indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for violations of section 215 of the Criminal Code, relating to fraudulent use of the mails. 18 U.S.C. § 338, 18 U.S.C.A. § 338. Under order of the court the government filed a bill of particulars. 4 F.Supp. 662. Defendants then moved to quash the indictment. The motion was based upon the indictment, the bill of particulars, and an affidavit of defendants' counsel. The affidavit was an argumentative review of the bill of particulars for the purpose of showing that in view of its statements the government would be 'unable to make a case.' The court granted the motion to quash, and the government brought this appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act. 18 U.S.C. § 682, 18 U.S.C.A. § 682. Defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal was postponed to the hearing on the merits.
The District Judge rendered no opinion, but certified that his 'decision and order quashing the indictment herein were not based in any respect upon the invalidity or construction of section 215 of the Criminal Code upon which the indictment in said cause is founded.'
We find no basis for the contention that defendants' motion to quash was in substance a 'special plea in bar' within the meaning of the Criminal Appeals Act. See United States v. Storrs, 272 U.S. 652, 654, 47 S.Ct. 221, 71 L.Ed. 460; United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 147, 52 S.Ct. 63, 76 L.Ed. 210, 82 A.L.R. 1376. The motion and the affidavit in its support challenged the sufficiency of the indictment in the light of the bill of particulars. As it does not appear that the decision of the District Judge was based upon the construction or invalidity of the statute upon which the indictment is founded, and as it may well be that the decision was based upo the construction of the indictment and its insufficiency as a pleading, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal. United States v. Carter, 231 U.S. 492, 493, 494, 34 S.Ct. 173, 58 L.Ed. 330; United States v. Moist, 231 U.S. 701, 702, 34 S.Ct. 255, 58 L.Ed. 444; United States v. Colgate, 250 U.S. 300, 301, 302, 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992, 7 A.L.R. 443; United States v. Hastings, 296 U.S. 188, 56 S.Ct. 218, 80 L.Ed. 148, decided December 9, 1935.
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 v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 466
United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft
Argued: November 3 and 4, 1915. --- Decided: January 10, 1916
Assistant to the Attorney General G. Carroll Todd and Special Assistant to the Attorney General Thurlow M. Gordon for the United States.
Messrs. Charles P. Spooner, John C. Spooner, and James L. Bishop for the Hamburg-American Steamship Company et al.
Messrs. Lucius H. Beers and Allan B. A. Bradley for the Cunard Steamship Company et al.
Messrs. Charles C. Burlingham and Roscoe H. Hupper for the American Line et al.
[Argument of Counsel from page 467 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph Larocque, William G. Choate, and Nelson Shipman for the North German Lloyd et al.
Mr. Ralph James M. Bullowa for the Russian East Asiatic Steamship Company et al.
Mr. Chief Justice White 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. Hancock Truck Lines

United States Supreme Court
324 U.S. 774
United States v. Hancock Truck Lines Regular Common Carriers Conference
Argued: March 27, 1945. --- Decided: April 23, 1945
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Mr. Edward Dumbauld, of Washington, D.C., for appellants the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. B. W. LaTourette, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant Regular Common Carriers Conference.
Messrs. Ferdinand Born and Albert Ward, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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. Hancock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
133 U.S. 193
United States v. Hancock
[Statement of Case from pages 193-195 intentionally omitted]
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for appellant.
A. T. Britton and A. B. Browne, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts as above, 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 88

Chap. LXXXVIII.—An Act directing the survey of the northern line of the reservation for the half-breed of the Sochs [Sacs] and Fox tribes of Indians by the treaty of August one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four.
1844, ch. 54. Boundary line to be surveyed and suitably demarked.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Chief Engineer cause to be surveyed and suitably demarked the northern boundary line of the reservation for the use of the half-breeds of the Soch [Sacs] and Fox tribes of Indians, by the treaty of the fourth of August one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, beginning at the point, which at the date of said treaty was known and recognised as the northwest corner of the State of Missouri, and running thence east to the river Mississippi, ​the section of said line lying between that stream and the river Des Moines being the northern boundary line of said reservation.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 92

Chap. XCII.—An Act to fix the value of certain foreign moneys of account, in computations at the custom-houses.
1846, ch. 14. 1845, ch. 45. Value of certain foreign moneys at the custom-house.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all computations of the value of foreign moneys of account at the custom-houses of the United States, the thaler of Prussia shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of sixty-eight and one half cents; the mil-reis of Portugal shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of one hundred and twelve cents; the rix-dollar of Bremen shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of seventy-eight and three-quarter cents; the thaler of Bremen, of seventy-two grotes, shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of seventy-one cents; that the mil-reis of Madeira shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of one hundred cents; the mil-reis of the Azores shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of eighty-three and one third cents; the marc-banco of Hamburg shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of thirty-five cents; the rouble of Russia shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of seventy-five cents; the rupee of British India shall be deemed and taken to be of the value of forty-four and one half cents; and all former laws inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 93

Chap. XCIII.—An Act authorizing an examination and survey or the harbor of Memphis, in Tennessee.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Examination and survey with a view to the establishment of a naval depot. That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause to be made an examination and survey of the harbor of Memphis, in the State of Tennessee, in reference to the expediency of establishing a naval depot yard for the building and repairing steam ships and other vessels of war at that place, and that he report to Congress the result of such examination and survey;Appropriation therefor. and that the sum of three thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury unappropriated, to defray the expenses of such examination and survey.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 85

Chap. LXXXV.—An Act for the protection of commerce on Lake Michigan.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriations. That the following sums of money be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the protection of commerce on Lake Michigan.
For the half calendar year from the first of January to thirtieth June, eighteen hundred and forty-three; and for the fiscal year from the first day of July, eighteen hundred and forty-three, to the thirtieth June eighteen hundred and forty-four, viz:
Milwaukie harbor.For the construction of a harbor at the most suitable situation at or near Milwaukie in the Territory of Wisconsin, to be made under the survey of an officer to be appointed by the Secretary of War, for the said half calendar year, fifteen thousand dollars; and for the said fiscal year, fifteen thousand dollars.
Light-house at Southport.It shall be the duty of the corps of topographical engineers to survey and select the most suitable site for a light-house at or near Southport on Lake Michigan, in said Territory.
Chicago harbor.For continuing the public works at the harbor of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, for the said half calendar year, ten thousand dollars; and for the said fiscal year, fifteen thousand dollars.
St. Joseph harbor.For continuing the public works at the harbor of St. Joseph in the State of Michigan; for the said half calendar year, ten thousand dollars; and for the said fiscal year, fifteen thousand dollars.
Location of Milwaukee harbor.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That before the money hereby appropriated for the construction of a harbor at or near said Milwaukie, shall be expended, the corps of topographical engineers shall select from actual examination and survey the point of location of said harbors.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/27th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 90

Chap. XC.—An act providing the means of future intercourse between the United States, and the Government of China.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,$40,000 placed at the disposal of the President for establishing commercial relations with China. To be accounted for, how. Act of July 1, 1790, ch. 22. Salary of the agent. That the sum of forty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated and placed at the disposal of the President of the United States, to enable him to establish the future commercial relations between the United States and the Chinese empire on terms of national equal reciprocity; the said sum to be accounted for by the President, in the manner prescribed by the act of first of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, entitled “An act providing the means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations:” Provided, That the annual compensation to any one person employed under this act shall not exceed the sum of nine thousand dollars exclusive of outfit:How to be appointed. And provided further, That no agent shall be sent by virtue of this act unless he shall have been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Approved, March 3, 1843.
# United States v. Smith (158 U.S. 346)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
158 U.S. 346
United States v. Smith
These were cross appeals from certain allowances and disallowances in the accounts of the claimant, who was district attorney of the United States for the territory of New Mexico from January 1, 1886, to December 31, 1888.
His accounts for the services performed by him during that time were duly rendered, with vouchers and items, to the proper district court, and were duly approved by said court in the sum of $19,230.80, as just and according to law. The accounts were afterwards presented to the treasury department, and certified as correct to the amount of $18,605.80, of which $14,266.34 was paid, leaving an unpaid balance of $4,339.36.
This balance the accounting officers of the treasury refused to certify for payment, upon the ground that the claimant had been paid for the three years in question the maximum compensation of $3,500 per annum prescribed by the act of August 7, 1882, for the attorney of the United States for New Mexico, and on the further ground, in respect to another item of $595, that it had been disallowed by the attorney general, as being in excess of just compensation.
The unpaid balance of $4,339.46 is composed of certain services performed by him in a claimed unofficial capacity under the direction of the attorney general, of mileage, and of per diem compensation.
The court of claims rendered judgment in his favor for the mileage, amounting to $1,270.80, but disallowed his claim for per diem compensation, amounting to $2,843.66, and for special services, $225.
Both parties thereupon appealed to this court.
Eppa Hunton and J. Althens Johnson, for plaintiff.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge and Felix Brannigan, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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. Smith (256 U.S. 11)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 11
United States v. Smith (256 U.S. 11)
Argued: March 22 and 23, 1921. --- Decided: April 11, 1921
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis and Mr. Wilford Hearn, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 12-14 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John E. Morley, of Cleveland, Ohio, Rufus S. Day, of Washington, D. C., and Roscoe M. Ewing, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.
Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered th 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. Lepowitch

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 702
United States v. Lepowitch
Argued: April 8, 1943. --- Decided: April 19, 1943
See 319 U.S. 783, 63 S.Ct. 1171, 87 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Archibald Cox, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Henry S. Janon, of St. Louis, Mo., 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. Leiter Minerals, Inc./Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 413
United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc.
The motion of Alma Buras et al. to be added as parties respondent is granted.
Upon consideration of the joint suggestion of mootness, the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated. The cases are remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot.

## 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. Lenson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 60
United States v. Lenson
Argued: Oct. 24, 1928. --- Decided: Nov 19, 1928
Lieutenant of Staff Corps of Navy, in continuous service for 15 years with 3 1/2 years' service as commissioned officer, held not entitled to fourth period pay under Act June 10, 1922, c. 212 (37 USCA §§ 1, 4), where it was not shown that his total commissioned service equaled that of any lieutenant commander of the line of the navy drawing the pay of that period, notwithstanding Act March 3, 1883, c. 97, § 1 (34 USCA § 231).
The Attorney General and Mr. Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Messrs. George A. King and William B. King, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
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. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (220 U.S. 257)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 257
United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
Argued: January 5, 1911. --- Decided: April 3, 1911
Messrs. Wade H. Ellis, Edwin P. Grosvenor, and Attorney General Wickersham for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 258-261 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John G. Johnson, Frank H. Platt, and J. F. Schaperkotter for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 261-263 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice White 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