OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Reports/Volume 217

* 217 U.S. 1 (1910) Maryland v. West Virginia
* 217 U.S. 47 (1910) Will v. Tornabells
* 217 U.S. 71 (1910) Frellsen Company v. Crandell
* 217 U.S. 79 (1910) Williams v. Arkansas
* 217 U.S. 91 (1910) International Text-Book Company v. Pigg
* 217 U.S. 114 (1910) Southwestern Oil Company v. Texas
* 217 U.S. 127 (1910) Unity Banking Saving Company v. Bettman
* 217 U.S. 136 (1910) St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas
* 217 U.S. 150 (1910) Todd v. Romeu
* 217 U.S. 157 (1910) Davis v. Cleveland Cincinnati Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company
* 217 U.S. 180 (1910) Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, & Omaha Railway Company v. United States
* 217 U.S. 189 (1910) Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston
* 217 U.S. 196 (1910) Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Nebraska
* 217 U.S. 209 (1910) Southern Railway Company v. Miller
* 217 U.S. 217 (1910) Los Angeles Farming Milling Company v. City of Los Angeles
* 217 U.S. 234 (1910) Wynne v. United States
* 217 U.S. 247 (1910) St. Louis, Kansas City, & Colorado Railroad Company v. Wabash Railroad Company
* 217 U.S. 257 (1910) Lutcher Moore Lumber Company v. Knight
* 217 U.S. 268 (1910) McClellan v. Carland
* 217 U.S. 284 (1910) Brantley v. Georgia
* 217 U.S. 286 (1910) United States v. Carter
* 217 U.S. 323 (1910) Stewart v. Griffith
* 217 U.S. 333 (1910) United States v. Cora Welch
* 217 U.S. 340 (1910) Lord v. United States
* 217 U.S. 349 (1910) Weems v. United States
* 217 U.S. 413 (1910) Standard Oil Company of Kentucky v. Tennessee ex rel Cates
* 217 U.S. 423 (1910) Heike v. United States
* 217 U.S. 433 (1910) Grenada Lumber Company v. Mississippi
* 217 U.S. 443 (1910) Citizens National Bank v. Kentucky ex rel Boyle County
* 217 U.S. 455 (1910) Fay v. Crozer
* 217 U.S. 457 (1910) Hutchinson Pierce Company v. Loewy
* 217 U.S. 461 (1910) Kidd Dater Price Company v. Musselman Grocer Company
* 217 U.S. 475 (1910) Souffront v. La Compagnie Des Sucreries De Porto Rico
* 217 U.S. 488 (1910) Owen v. Dudley
* 217 U.S. 497 (1910) Cook Company v. Beecher
* 217 U.S. 499 (1910) Stoffela v. Nugent
* 217 U.S. 502 (1910) Javierre v. Altagracia
* 217 U.S. 509 (1910) Holmgren v. United States
* 217 U.S. 524 (1910) Southern Railway Company v. Josephine King No 140 Southern Railway Company
* 217 U.S. 539 (1910) Freeman v. United States
* 217 U.S. 547 (1910) Columbia Heights Realty Company v. Rudolph
* 217 U.S. 561 (1910) Wallach v. Rudolph
* 217 U.S. 563 (1910) Brown-Forman Company v. Kentucky
* 217 U.S. 577 (1910) Maryland v. West Virginia
* 217 U.S. 586 (1910) Ex parte Gruetter
* 217 U.S. 589 (1910) David Munro Rogers v. Clark Iron Company
* 217 U.S. 591 (1910) Nollman Company v. Wentworth Lunch Company
* 217 U.S. 593 (1910) Wenar v. Jones
* 217 U.S. 594 (1910) Schultz v. Diehl
* 217 U.S. 595 (1910) Philip Brady v. Bernard & Kittinger
* 217 U.S. 596 (1910) Ex parte Morse
* 217 U.S. 600 (1910) American National Bank of Washington v. Tappan
* 217 U.S. 601 (1910) United States v. Sewel
* 217 U.S. 611 (1910) Harding v. Gillett
# United States Reports/Volume 213

* 213 U.S. 1 (1909) Atchison Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Calhoun
* 213 U.S. 10 (1909) Davidson Bros Marble Company v. United States of America ex rel Gibson
* 213 U.S. 20 (1909) Martinez v. La Asociation De Senoras Damas Deal Santo Asilo De Ponce
* 213 U.S. 25 (1909) Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Brown
* 213 U.S. 52 (1909) Western Union Telegraph Company v. Wilson
* 213 U.S. 55 (1909) Atchison Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sowers
* 213 U.S. 72 (1909) Mammoth Mining Company v. Grand Central Mining Company
* 213 U.S. 78 (1909) Missouri v. Kansas
* 213 U.S. 86 (1909) Edward Bonner v. Gorman
* 213 U.S. 92 (1909) United States v. Dickinson
* 213 U.S. 103 (1909) Hepner v. United States
* 213 U.S. 115 (1909) United States v. Mason
* 213 U.S. 126 (1909) Hurley v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company
* 213 U.S. 135 (1909) Keerl v. Montana
* 213 U.S. 138 (1909) Keller v. United States
* 213 U.S. 151 (1909) Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company
* 213 U.S. 174 (1909) Murray v. South Carolina ex rel Ray
* 213 U.S. 175 (1909) Siler v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
* 213 U.S. 199 (1909) Siler v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
* 213 U.S. 200 (1909) Selliger v. Kentucky
* 213 U.S. 207 (1909) Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. McCabe
* 213 U.S. 223 (1909) Coder v. Arts
* 213 U.S. 245 (1909) Commercial Mutual Accident Company v. Davis
* 213 U.S. 257 (1909) Molyneaux Turner v. American Security & Trust Company
* 213 U.S. 268 (1909) Maiorano v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
* 213 U.S. 276 (1909) Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Company v. Boise City
* 213 U.S. 288 (1909) Macfadden v. United States
* 213 U.S. 297 (1909) United States v. Evans
* 213 U.S. 301 (1909) Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company
* 213 U.S. 325 (1909) Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company
* 213 U.S. 338 (1909) Van Gieson v. Maile
* 213 U.S. 339 (1909) Boquillas Land Cattle Company v. J N Curtis C
* 213 U.S. 347 (1909) American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company
* 213 U.S. 360 (1909) Sand Filtration Corporation of America v. Cowardin
* 213 U.S. 366 (1909) United States v. Delaware & Hudson Company
* 213 U.S. 419 (1909) Strong v. Repide
* 213 U.S. 435 (1909) Delaware Hudson Company v. Albany & Susquehanna Railroad Company
* 213 U.S. 453 (1909) Manson v. Williams
* 213 U.S. 458 (1909) In re Winn
# United States Reports/Volume 22

9 Wheaton., ( 6 L.Ed. )
* 22 U.S. 1 (1824) Gibbons v. Ogden
* 22 U.S. 241 (1824) Kirk v. Smith Penn
* 22 U.S. 325 (1824) Robert Taylor v. John Thompson Mason
* 22 U.S. 354 (1824) M'Creery's v. Somerville
* 22 U.S. 362 (1824) The Apollon
* 22 U.S. 381 (1824) The Emily and the Caroline Broadfoot
* 22 U.S. 391 (1824) The Merino the Constitution the Louisa Barrias
* 22 U.S. 409 (1824) The St Jago De Cuba Vinente
* 22 U.S. 421 (1824) The Margaret Carlos Fernando Haley
* 22 U.S. 430 (1824) Two Hundred Chests of Tea Smith
* 22 U.S. 445 (1824) John Mason v. John Muncaster
* 22 U.S. 469 (1824) Doddridge v. Thompson
* 22 U.S. 483 (1824) Riggs v. Tayloe
* 22 U.S. 489 Hughes v. Edwards
* 22 U.S. 502 (1824) Stephens v. McCargo
* 22 U.S. 515 (1824) Love v. Simms's
* 22 U.S. 526 (1824) Stewart v. Ingle
* 22 U.S. 527 (1824) Peyton v. Robertson
* 22 U.S. 529 (1824) Burr
* 22 U.S. 532 (1824) Smith v. McIver
* 22 U.S. 537 Mullen v. Torrance
* 22 U.S. 541 (1824) Walker v. Turner
* 22 U.S. 553 (1824) Catlett v. Brodie
* 22 U.S. 556 (1824) Baits v. Peters & Stebbins
* 22 U.S. 558 (1824) Sebree v. Dorr
* 22 U.S. 565 (1824) Kerr v. Devisees of a Moon
* 22 U.S. 573 (1824) Meredith v. Picket
* 22 U.S. 576 (1824) Walden Denn v. Craig
* 22 U.S. 579 (1824) United States v. Josef Perez
* 22 U.S. 581 (1824) Renner v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia
* 22 U.S. 598 (1824) George McGruder v. The President Directors and Company of the Bank of Washington
* 22 U.S. 603 (1824) Wood & Brundage
* 22 U.S. 616 (1824) The Monte Allegre Tenant
* 22 U.S. 650 (1824) McIver v. Wattles
* 22 U.S. 651 (1824) Walton v. United States
* 22 U.S. 658 (1824) The Fanny
* 22 U.S. 673 (1824) Danforth v. Wear
* 22 U.S. 680 Miller v. Stewart
* 22 U.S. 720 (1824) United States v. Kirkpatrick
* 22 U.S. 738 (1824) Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States
* 22 U.S. 904 Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia
# Unheard-of Curiosities/9

Whether, or no, the Ancient Hebrewes made use of any Mathematicall Instrument in their Astrology : and what the figure of their Instruments was.
the contents.
* What Instruments the Ancient Astrologers used. The Fable of Atlas discovered.
* The Hebrewes Sphere described.
* Certain Doubts proposed, concerning the Fabrick of it. The strange conceit of R. Moses, concerning the number of the Heavens.
* A Conjecture upon the Antiquity of this Sphere.
* Of the Diall of Ahaz, and its description, not yet seen.
* Conjectures on the figure of our Sun-dials.
# Unheard-of Curiosities/Ⅰ

Chapters :
* That many things are falsely imposed upon the Jewes, and the rest of the Eastern men, which never were.
* That many things are esteemed ridiculous, and dangerous, in the Bookes of the Jewes, which yet are, without any blame, maintained by Christian Writers.
# Unheard-of Curiosities/Ⅲ

Chapters :
* That Idolatry is falsly said to have sprung from the Astrology of the Ancients.
* Whether, or no, the Ancient Hebrewes made use of any Mathematicall Instrument in their Astrology : and what the figure of their Instruments was.
* That the Astrology of the Ancient Hebrewes, Ægyptians, and Arabians was not such, as it is delivered by Scaliger, Augustinus Riccius, Kunrath, Duret, and Vigenere.
* What, in truth, was the course the Patriarchs, and Ancient Hebrewes took, in their Observations, at the erecting of a Nativity.
# Unicorn

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Unicorn."
* 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.
* "The Unicorn," a short story by Frank Owen (1952)
* "Unicorn," in Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition (1875–1889)
* "Unicorn," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Unicorn," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
# Uniformed Sanitation Men Association v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 280
Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
No. 823. Argued: May 1, 1968. --- Decided: June 10, 1968.
In connection with an investigation of improper activities by New York City sanitation employees the individual petitioners, fifteen sanitation employees, were summoned before the Commissioner of Investigation and advised that, if they refused to testify with respect to their official conduct on the ground of self-incrimination, their employment would terminate, in accordance with § 1123 of the City Charter. Twelve asserted the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify, after being told that their answers could be used against them in subsequent proceedings. They were dismissed on the basis of that refusal. Three employees who answered the questions and denied the charges made against them were suspended, and then called before a grand jury and asked to sign waivers of immunity. Upon their refusal to do so they were dismissed on the ground that they violated § 1123 by refusing to sign the waivers. The Federal District Court dismissed petitioners' action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on the alleged wrongful discharge in violation of their constitutional rights, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Petitioners as public employees are entitled, like all other persons, to the benefit of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and they may not be faced with proceedings which, as here, presented them with a choice between surrendering their constitutional rights or their jobs. Gardner v. Broderick, ante, p. 273. Public employees are subject to dismissal if they refuse to account for the performance of their public trust after proper proceeding which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights. Pp. 283-285.
383 F. 2d 362, reversed.
Leonard B. Boudin argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Victor Rabinowitz.
Norman Redlich argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were J. Lee Rankin and John J. Loflin.

## 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
# Unheard-of Curiosities/Ⅱ

Chapters :
* That the Persians are unjustly blamed, concerning the Curiosities of their Magicke, Sculpture, and Astrology.
* That for want of understanding Aristotle aright, men have condemned the power of Figures, and concluded very many things, both against this Philosopher, and against all sound Philosophy.
* The power of Artificiall Images is proved, by that of those that are found Naturally imprinted on Stones, and Plants, commonly called Gamahe, or Camaieu, and Signatures
* That, according to the opinion of the Eastern men, Figures, and Images may be so prepared, under certaine Constellations, as that they shal have the power, Naturally, and without the aide of any Demon, or Divel, to drive away noisome beasts, allay Winds, Thunder, and Tempests, and to cure diverse kinds of Diseases.
* That the Objections which are made against Talismanical Figures, make not any thing at all against their Power.
# Unheard-of Curiosities/Ⅳ

Chapters :
* Whether it be possible to read any thing, in the Clouds, and in all other Meteors.
* That the Stars, according to the Opinion of the Hebrew Writers, are ranged in the Heavens, in the forme of Letters : and that it is possible to read there, whatsoever of Importance is to happen, throughout the Universe.
# United States v. Lacher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
134 U.S. 624
United States v. Lacher
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury and Benj. Barker, for defendant.
FULLER, C. 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. Lamar

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 423
United States v. Lamar
Argued: January 18, 1886. ---
W. Willoughby, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Goode, for defendant in error.
FIELD, 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. Lancaster

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
18 U.S. 434
United States v. Lancaster

## 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. Lancaster/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania.
This was an action of debt originally brought in the District Court, and carried by writ of error to the Circuit Court, from which it was brought to this Court, upon a case agreed by the parties, and a certificate that the opinions of the judges were opposed upon a question arising in the cause.
The cause was argued by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, for the plaintiffs, and by Mr. Sergeant, for the defendant.
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, that it had no jurisdiction of the cause, as the District Judge could not sit in the Circuit Court on a writ of error from his own decision, and consequently there could be no division of opinion to be certified to this Court.a
JUDGMENT. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it was ADJUDGED and ORDERED, that the said cause be remanded to the said Circuit Court, it not appearing from the said transcript that this Court has jurisdiction in said cause.

## 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. Landers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 77
United States v. Landers
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Landers enlisted for three years; was enrolled Jan. 1, 1864; and mustered into service Jan. 16, 1864, to take effect from the date of his enrolment. He deserted Nov. 12, 1864; was arrested June 2, 1865; restored to duty, with the loss of all pay and allowances due or to become due during the term of his enlistment; and honorably discharged on the 8th of August, 1865. The Court of Claims rendered judgment in his favor for an amount equal to his pay and bounty. The United States appealed.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith for the United States.
The Court of Claims erroneously assumes that this court held in United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34, that the offence of desertion was purged by an honorable discharge. Such is not the case. Power to try the soldier, or, further, to punish him for the desertion, is lost by his restoration to duty. Thenceforth there is nothing to be purged. As part and condition of that restoration 'by competent authority,' forfeiture may, however, be decreed of his pay and allowances. Army Reg. 159, 160; R. S. 4749; Judge Ad.-Gen. Holt's Op., p. 139, sects. 7, 9; p. 136, sect. 1.
If the restoration be, in effect, a pardon (as treated by the Court of Claims), then it can only be authorized by the President, who is solely invested with the power to grant an absolute or conditional pardon. Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307, 314.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. A. A. Hosmer, contra.
The plain and definite language adopted by this court in United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34, establishes the presumptio juris et de jure of the thing adjudged; that is, the honorable discharge is a formal, final judgment in favor of the soldier upon his entire military record. This discharge cannot be impeached collaterally; nor can any officer of the pay department disregard its contents, or refuse to give it its legal effect.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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. Guillem

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 47
United States v. Guillem

## 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. Gudger

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 373
United States v. Gudger
Argued: Dec. 11, 1918. --- Decided: April 14, 1919
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United states.
Mr. Joseph S. Graydon, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant in error.
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. Guest
## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 745
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Herbert GUEST et al.
Argued: Nov. 9, 1965. --- Decided: March 28, 1966
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall, for appellant.
Charles J. Bloch, Macon, Ga., for appellee James Spergeon Lackey.
James E. Hudson, Athens, Ga., for other appellees.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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. Gulf Refining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 542
United States v. Gulf Refining Company
Argued: June 1, 1925. ---
Mr. James A. Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., and The Attorney General, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 543 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. R. L. Batts, of Austin, Tex., James B. Diggs, of Tulsa, Okl., and Frank M. Swacker, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. John F. Finerty, of Washington, D. C., for Director General of Railroads.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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 3/17th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 55

Chap. LV.—An Act respecting stamps.
April 23, 1800, ch. 31. Deeds, &c. not stamped by act of April 23, 1800, on payment of the duty and ten dollars, rendered valid as if stamped.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, whenever any person or persons shall pay to the Secretary of the Treasury, the duty chargeable by the act, entitled “An act to establish a general stamp office,” passed on the twenty-third day of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred, on any deed, instrument, or writing, on which the said stamp duty chargeable by law shall not have been paid, together with the further sum of ten dollars, and shall obtain a certificate thereof, from the Secretary of the Treasury, such deed, instrument, or writing, shall be, to all intents and purposes, as valid and available, as if the same had been, or ​were, stamped, counter stamped, or marked, as by said law required; any thing in any act to the contrary notwithstanding.
Act to continue in force for one year.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall be, and continue, in force for the term of one year from the passage thereof, and no longer.
Approved, March 3, 1823.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/17th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 48

Chap. XLVIII.—An Act vesting in the state of Virginia the right of the United States to all fines assessed for non-performance of militia duty, during the late war with Great Britain, within said state.
Right of the United States to militia fines in Virginia vested in that state.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all right which the United States have to the fines assessed upon the citizens of the state of Virginia, for the non-performance of militia duty during the late war with Great Britain shall be, and the same is hereby, vested in the said state.
Moneys that are or have been collected to be paid to treasurer of the state.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all moneys in the hands of those who now are, or heretofore have been, marshals, or deputy marshals, which may have been collected from the fines aforesaid, after deducting the expense of collecting the same, and the cost of any suit or suits which may have been brought against said marshals or deputy marshals, in consequence of the collection of said fines, shall be paid by them, respectively, to the treasurer of said state.
Fines to be recovered by the state as prescribed by the legislature. Proviso.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said fines shall be recovered, by the said state, under such regulations, provisions, and restrictions, as shall be prescribed by the legislature thereof: Provided, That if the provisions of this act are accepted by the state of Virginia, that state shall indemnify the United States against any charge or charges which has already accrued, or which may hereafter be made, in consequence of the assessment and collection of said fines.
Approved, March 3, 1823.