OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Reports/Volume 415

* 415 U.S. 1 (1974) Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Company, Inc.
* 415 U.S. 36 (1974) Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Company
* 415 U.S. 61 (1974) Sampson v. Murray
* 415 U.S. 104 (1974) Windward Shipping Limited v. American Radio Association
* 415 U.S. 125 (1974) Phillips Petroleum Company v. Texaco, Inc.
* 415 U.S. 130 (1974) Lewis v. City of New Orleans
* 415 U.S. 143 (1974) United States v. Kahn
* 415 U.S. 164 (1974) United States v. Matlock
* 415 U.S. 189 (1974) Curtis v. Loether
* 415 U.S. 199 (1974) Morton v. Ruiz
* 415 U.S. 239 (1974) United States v. Kahan
* 415 U.S. 250 (1974) Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County
* 415 U.S. 289 (1974) Mississippi v. Arkansas
* 415 U.S. 303 (1974) Patterson v. Warner
* 415 U.S. 308 (1974) Davis v. Alaska
* 415 U.S. 322 (1974) National Labor Relations Board v. Magnavox Company of Tennessee
* 415 U.S. 333 (1974) Speight, T/A Harlem Book Store v. Slaton
* 415 U.S. 336 (1974) National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. United States
* 415 U.S. 345 (1974) Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Company
* 415 U.S. 352 (1973) National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. United States Federal Power Commission
* 415 U.S. 361 (1974) Johnson v. Robison
* 415 U.S. 391 (1974) Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration
* 415 U.S. 394 (1974) Teleprompter Corporation v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
* 415 U.S. 423 (1974) Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County
* 415 U.S. 449 (1974) Joseph Demarco v. United States.
* 415 U.S. 452 (1974) Steffel v. Thompson
* 415 U.S. 486 (1974) United States v. General Dynamics Corporation
* 415 U.S. 528 (1974) Hagans v. Lavine
* 415 U.S. 566 (1974) Smith v. Goguen
* 415 U.S. 605 (1974) Mayor of City of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League
* 415 U.S. 651 (1974) Edelman v. Jordan
* 415 U.S. 697 (1974) Eaton v. City of Tulsa
* 415 U.S. 709 (1974) Lubin v. Panish
* 415 U.S. 724 (1974) Storer v. Brown
* 415 U.S. 767 (1974) American Party of Texas v. White
* 415 U.S. 800 (1974) United States v. Edwards
* 415 U.S. 814 (1974) Huddleston v. United States
* 415 U.S. 936 (1974) Wright v. North Carolina
* 415 U.S. 940 (1974) Moran v. Neff
* 415 U.S. 961 (1974) Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. Federal Power Commission
* 415 U.S. 969 (1974) Holt v. Yonce
* 415 U.S. 995 (1974) Flaherty v. Arkansas
* 415 U.S. 1301 (1974) Hughes v. Thompson
* 415 U.S. 1304 (1974) Hayakawa v. Brown
# United States Reports/Volume 418

* 418 U.S. 1 (1974) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Idaho Power Company
* 418 U.S. 24 (1974) Richardson v. Ramirez
* 418 U.S. 87 (1974) Hamling v. United States
* 418 U.S. 153 (1974) Jenkins v. Georgia
* 418 U.S. 166 (1974) United States v. Richardson
* 418 U.S. 208 (1974) Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
* 418 U.S. 241 (1974) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
* 418 U.S. 264 (1974) Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin
* 418 U.S. 298 (1974) Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights
* 418 U.S. 323 (1974) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
* 418 U.S. 405 (1974) Spence v. Washington
* 418 U.S. 424 (1974) Dorszynski v. United States
* 418 U.S. 461 (1974) Wingo v. Wedding
* 418 U.S. 488 (1974) Taylor v. Hayes
* 418 U.S. 506 (1974) Codispoti v. Pennsylvania
* 418 U.S. 539 (1974) Wolff v. McDonnell
* 418 U.S. 602 (1974) United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc.
* 418 U.S. 656 (1974) United States v. Connecticut National Bank
* 418 U.S. 676 (1974) Secretary of Navy v. Avrech
* 418 U.S. 683 (1974) United States v. Nixon
* 418 U.S. 717 (1974) Milliken v. Bradley
* 418 U.S. 911 (1974) Watkins v. South Carolina
* 418 U.S. 917 (1974) Trinkler v. Alabama
* 418 U.S. 919 (1974) Missouri Portland Cement Company v. Cargill, Inc.
* 418 U.S. 924 (1974) Carlson v. United States
* 418 U.S. 930 (1974) Village Books, Inc. v. Marshall
* 418 U.S. 934 (1974) Cangiano v. United States
* 418 U.S. 1301 (1974) In re Lewis
# United States v. McKesson & Robbins

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
351 U.S. 305
United States v. McKesson & Robbins
Argued: April 30, 1956. --- Decided: June 11, 1956
Mr.Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. John P. McGrath, New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 750
United States v. McLean
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
This was an action by McLean to recover $569.50 for compensation which he claimed to be due him as deputy-postmaster at Florence, Kansas, from April 14, 1871, to July 1, 1872.
The Court of Claims found in his favor, and rendered judgment for that amount. The United States appealed to this court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Harvey Spalding, contra.
MR. JUSTICE STRONG 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. McLemore

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
45 U.S. 286
United States v. McLemore
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Middle Tennessee, sitting as a court of equity.
It is unnecessary to recite all the circumstances which led to the filing of the bill in equity, as it was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. The facts in the case are summarily stated in the opinion of the court. It is proper, however, to exhibit the account to which the opinion of Mr. Justice Wayne refers:--

## 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. McMahon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
164 U.S. 81
United States v. McMahon
These were writs of error sued out by both parties, to review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit. affirming, except in one particular, a judgment of the circuit court for the Southern district of New York for $4,843.60 in favor of the petitioner, McMahon, for fees and disbursements as marshal for that district from July 7, 1885, to January 12, 1890. The opinion of the court of appeals is found in 26 U.S. App. 687, 13 C. C. A. 257, and 65 Fed. 976.
The assignments of error filed by both parties are set out in the opinion of the court.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge, for the United States.
R. R. McMahon, for McMahon.
Mr. Justice BROWN 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. McLaughlin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 428
United States v. McLaughlin
Atty. Gen. Garland, (Mich. Mullany and D. M. Delmas, specially,) for appellant.
Wm. J. Johnston and W. D. Brainard, for plaintiffs in error Dewitt et al. and Friend et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 429-430 intentionally omitted]
A. L. Rhodes, L. W. Elliott, and Henry Beard, for appellee and defendants in error.
BRADLEY, 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. Bassett

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
62 U.S. 412
United States v. Bassett
This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Hull and Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the United States, and by Mr. Blair and Mr. Volney E. Howard for the appellee.
The case, like the preceding one of Nye, depended upon the validity of Sutter's general title, and the same points are applicable to both.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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. Bausch & Lomb Optical Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 707
United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Company
Argued: Dec. 8, 1943. --- Decided: April 10, 1944
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Hon. Wendell Berge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Bethuel M. Webster, of New York City, for Soft-Lite Lens Co. Inc., et al.
Mr. Whitney North Seymour, of New York City, for Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., et al.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Blackmun
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 336
United States v. Bass
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
No. 70-71 Argued: October 18, 1971 --- Decided: December 20, 1971
Respondent was convicted of possessing firearms in violation of § 1202 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which provides that a person convicted of a felony "who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce... any firearm..." shall be punished as prescribed therein. The indictment did not allege and no attempt was made to show that the firearms involved had been possessed "in commerce or affecting commerce," the Government contending that the statute does not require proof of a connection with interstate commerce in individual cases involving possession or receipt. Doubting its constitutionality if the statute were thus construed, the Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: It is not clear from the language and legislative history of § 1202 (a)(1) whether or not receipt or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon has to be shown in an individual prosecution to have been connected with interstate commerce. The ambiguity of this provision (which is not only a criminal statute but one whose broad construction would define as a federal offense conduct readily proscribed by the States), must therefore be resolved in favor of the narrower reading that a nexus with interstate commerce must be shown with respect to all three offenses embraced by the provision. Pp. 339-351.
434 F. 2d 1296, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN (except for Part III), STEWART, and WHITE, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a separate statement, post, p. 351. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 351.
Roger A. Pauley argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Samuel Huntington, and Beatrice Rosenberg.
William E. Hellerstein, by appointment of the Court, 402 U.S. 927, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Phyllis Skloot Bamberger.

## 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. Bathgate Same

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 220
United States v. Bathgate Same
Argued: Jan. 16 and 17, 1918. --- Decided: March 4, 1918
[Syllabus from pages 220-221 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Fitts, for the United States.
[Argument of Council on pages 221-223 intentionally omitted.]
Messrs. John R. Holmes and Sherman T. McPherson, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hosack, John

​HOSACK, JOHN (d. 1887), lawyer and historical writer, was the third son of John R. Hosack of Glenaher, Dumfriesshire. He became a student of the Middle Temple in 1838, was called to the bar in 1841, and practised on the northern circuit and at the Liverpool sessions. In 1875, though not a Q.C., he was made a bencher of his inn, and in 1877 he became police magistrate at Clerkenwell. He died at his house in Finborough Road, West Brompton, on 3 Nov. 1887, and was buried at Lytham in Lancashire.
Hosack wrote:
* ‘A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws of England and Scotland’ (only one part published), London, 1847, 8vo.
* ‘The Rights of British and Neutral Commerce, as affected by recent Royal Declarations and Orders in Council,’ London, 1854, 12mo.
* ‘Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers,’ London, 1869, 8vo; 2nd edit., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1870–4, 8vo—a defence ​of the queen.
* ‘On the Rise and Growth of the Law of Nations, … from the earliest times to the Treaty of Utrecht,’ London, 1882, 8vo.
* ‘Mary Stewart: a brief statement of the principal charges which have been brought against her, together with answers to the same,’ published after his death, Edinburgh, 1888, 8vo.
[Foster's Men at the Bar; Law Journal, 12 Nov. 1887; Brit. Mus. Cat.]
W. A. J. A.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Horwitz, Bernard

​HORWITZ, BERNARD (1807–1885), writer on chess, born in 1807, was a native of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg, and received his training in the game under Mendheim at Berlin, becoming one of the seven great players known as the Pleiades. After passing some time in Hamburg he settled in England about 1845. He increased his reputation for chess-playing, took part in nearly all the tournaments which were held in England before 1862, and wrote to illustrate the strategy of the game. Horwitz died suddenly in London on 29 Aug. 1885. As joint author with J. Kling, Horwitz in 1851 published ‘Chess Studies,’ a book mainly devoted to ‘endings’ of games, previous books having rather considered ‘openings.’ In the same year they also issued a periodical called ‘The Chess Player,’ of which four volumes appeared, 1851–3. It chiefly consisted of complete games and several analyses. Horwitz's last work was ‘Chess Studies and End-games systematically arranged,’ London, 1884.
[Times, 30 Aug. 1885; Chess Monthly, vii. 8; Ann. Reg. 1885.]
R. E. A.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hortop, Job

​HORTOP, JOB (fl. 1591), seaman and traveller, describes himself as a powder-maker, born at Bourne in Lincolnshire, and from the age of twelve brought up as a powder-maker at Redriff, now called Rotherhithe. In 1567 he was entered on board the Jesus with Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkyns [q. v.] as one of the gunner's crew, and served in her during the voyage which was rudely ended at San Juan de Lua. Hortop was one of those who escaped in the Minion and were afterwards landed to the north of the river Panuco. Thence he and his companions made their way to the city of Mexico, where he was detained two years. He was afterwards sent to Vera Cruz for a passage to Spain; had a narrow escape of being hanged on the way for an attempt to escape, and on arriving at San Lucar was consigned to a prison at Seville. He contrived to escape, in company with Barrett, who had been master of the Jesus, a man named Gilbert, and four others. They were caught and brought back; Barrett and Gilbert were sentenced to death and executed; Hortop was sent to the galleys for ten years, the others for shorter times. Hortop's ten years was extended to twelve, and he was then sent back to prison, from which he was taken to work ‘as a drudge’ in the house of ‘the treasurer of the king's mint.’ In October 1590, while at San Lucar, he stowed himself away on board a ship of Flanders, which was captured by the Galeon Dudley, and Hortop was thus brought to England. He landed at Plymouth on 2 Dec. 1590, and returned to Rotherhithe. His own narrative, published in 1591 separately, and in 1598 by Hakluyt, which supplies all that is known of him, ceases at this point. As he professes to repeat the exact words of conversations twenty-three years old, of which he had no memorandum, the details of his adventures cannot be considered altogether trustworthy.
[Hakluyt's Principal Navigations, iii. 487.]
J. K. L.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Horton, Christiana

​HORTON, CHRISTIANA (1696?–1756?), actress, belonged to a Wiltshire family; married when very young a musician, who ill-treated her; joined while still in her youth a company of strolling players under a manager called Booker; and in the summer of 1713 at Windsor played Marcia in ‘Cato’ with a wretched company. Barton Booth [q. v.] saw her in 1714 play in Southwark fair the part of Cupid in a droll called ‘Cupid and Psyche,’ and took her to Drury Lane, where she appeared during the season of 1714–15 as Melinda in the ‘Recruiting Officer.’ She remained at Drury Lane until the season of 1734–5, when she went to Covent Garden. She practically quitted the stage in 1750, retiring on a small pension, but reappeared at Drury Lane 20 April 1752 at a performance partly for her benefit given by Garrick and Lacy, and played Queen Elizabeth in the ‘Unhappy Favourite’ of Banks. Her thanks to her friends were published in an advertisement. She died about 1756. Of cold temperament, of good character, and of admirable beauty, Mrs. Horton played at one or other house the leading parts in tragedy and comedy. She was the original Mariana in the ‘Miser’ of Fielding, Drury Lane, 17 Feb. 1733. Her characters included Lady Lurewell, Mrs. Sullen, Marcia in ‘Cato,’ Olivia in the ‘Plain Dealer,’ Belinda in the ‘Old Bachelor,’ Queen Katherine, Lady Macbeth, Belvidera, Cleopatra, Hermione, Cordelia, Jane Shore, Lady Betty Modish, Mrs. Ford, Angelica in ‘Love for Love,’ and innumerable others. Barton Booth and Wilks declared her the best successor to Mrs. Oldfield. Steele complimented her highly on her performance of Lady Brumpton in the ‘Funeral;’ Victor specially praises her Millamant in ‘The Way of the World,’ and Davies, who says that in this part she was held to have eclipsed Mrs. Oldfield, commends her Belinda. The author of ‘Betterton's History of the Stage’ says in 1741 that in comedy she is without a rival, asserts that in the meridian of life she retained her beauty and some of her bloom, and ‘is by far the best figure on either stage’ (p. 165). Late in life she grew stout. Refusing angrily a reduced salary of four pounds a week offered her in good nature by Rich, she was unable to obtain a further engagement. On one occasion, by a display of spirit, she won to approval a refractory audience. She was extremely vain, and on the verge of sixty dressed like a young girl, laced herself until her figure was distorted, and simpered and ogled to the last. ​Davies says she refused honourably brilliant offers of ‘protection,’ that of all women he ever saw she had ‘the greatest pretence to (justification for) vanity,’ and that her sole passion was to be admired.
[Genest's Account of the Stage; Davies's Dramatic Miscellanies; Victor's Letters; Betterton's History of the Stage.]
J. K.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Séquard, Charles Edward Brown-

​SÉQUARD, CHARLES EDWARD BROWN- (1817–1894), physiologist. [See Brown-Séquard.]
# United States v. P. Lorillard Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 471
United States v. P. Lorillard Company
Argued: March 13, 1925. --- Decided: March 23, 1925
Mr. Merrill E. Otis, of St. Joseph, Mo., and The Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. M. C. Elliott, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
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. Pabst Brewing Company

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Douglas
    White
    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 546
United States v. Pabst Brewing Company
Argued: April 27, 1966. --- Decided: June 13, 1966
Edwin M. Zimmerman, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
John T. Chadwell, Chicago, Ill., 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. P. Koenig Coal Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 512
United States v. P. Koenig Coal Company
Argued: March 16 and 17, 1926. --- Decided: April 12, 1926
The Attorney General, and Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., Blackburn Esterline, Asst. Sol. Gen., both of Washington, D. C., and William H. Bonneville, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. Harold Goodman and Edwin R. Monnig, both of Detroit, Mich., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 513 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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