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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 701
United States v. Moist
Argued: October 22, 1913. --- Decided: January 5, 1914
Assistant Attorney General Denison for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Roy D. Keehn for defendant in error.
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. Moist/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 701
United States v. Moist
Argued: October 22, 1913. --- Decided: January 5, 1914
This is an indictment under § 215 of the Criminal Code of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. at L. 1130, chap. 321, U.S.C.omp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1653), for placing a letter in the postoffice for delivery by the postoffice establishment for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud. The scheme alleged was to send out puzzle pictures, advertising as a prize for the neatest correct answer a credit order for $350 on a certain piano, one for $300 for the next neatest, and others for $200 for correct answers. Persons answering were to be told that they were entitled, for instance, to an order for $200 on a piano sold the world over for $300, which would cost them $75 cash with the order. The credit was to be a pretense, as the piano to be delivered was to be one of a retail price not exceeding the cash received. It was not alleged that the piano was to be worth less than the cash paid, but, as is manifest, people were to be led into the dealing by the delusive apparatus of a promise known to be false when made (Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 40 L. ed. 709, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 508), and false statements as to the value of the piano bought. The indictment was demurred to and the dumurrer was sustained.
It will not be necessary to decide whether the facts alleged show a scheme to defraud, since it does not appear on what ground the court acted. As was said in United States v. Carter (Dec. 15, 1913 [[[231 U.S. 492]], 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173]): 'There is nothing in the record showing any request made to the trial court for an expression of opinion in such form as to manifest clearly whether its action proceeded upon a construction of the statute, or merely upon the meaning which was given to the indictment.' As it does not appear that the judgment turned upon any controverted construction of the statute, the writ of error must be dismissed in this case as in that. It is unnecessary to consider whether every determination concerning the common law of fraud taken for granted by the act would be a decision based upon the construction of the statute, within the meaning of the act of March 2, 1907, chap. 2564, 34 Stat. at L. 1246.
Writ of error 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. Monia

United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 424
United States v. Monia
Argued: Dec. 16, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 11, 1943
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Mr. Edward H. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. A. L. Hodson, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
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 Reports/Volume 569

* 569 U.S. 1 (2013) Florida v. Jardines
* 569 U.S. 27 (2013) Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
* 569 U.S. 50 (2013) Millbrook v. United States
* 569 U.S. 58 (2013) Marshall v. Rodgers (per curiam)
* 569 U.S. 66 (2013) Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk
* 569 U.S. 88 (2013) US Airways, Inc v. McCutchen
* 569 U.S. 108 (2013) Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
* 569 U.S. 141 (2013) Missouri v. McNeely
* 569 U.S. 184 (2013) Moncrieffe v. Holder
* 569 U.S. 221 (2013) McBurney v. Young
* 569 U.S. 238 (2013) Boyer v. Louisiana (per curiam)
* 569 U.S. 251 (2013) Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey
* 569 U.S. 267 (2013) Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A.
* 569 U.S. 278 (2013) Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
* 569 U.S. 290 (2013) City of Arlington v. Federal Communications Commission
* 569 U.S. 329 (2013) PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 569 U.S. 351 (2013) Metrish v. Lancaster
* 569 U.S. 369 (2013) Sebelius v. Cloer
* 569 U.S. 383 (2013) McQuiggen v. Perkins
* 569 U.S. 413 (2013) Trevino v. Thaler
* 569 U.S. 435 (2013) Maryland v. King
* 569 U.S. 483 (2013) Hillman v. Maretta
* 569 U.S. 505 (2013) Nevada v. Jackson (per curiam)
* 569 U.S. 513 (2013) Horne v. Department of Agriculture
* 569 U.S. 530 (2013) Peugh v. United States
* 569 U.S. 564 (2013) Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter
* 569 U.S. 576 (2013) Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
* 569 U.S. 597 (2013) United States v. Davila
* 569 U.S. 614 (2013) Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann
* 569 U.S. 641 (2013) American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
# United States Reports/Volume 568

* 568 U.S. 1 (2012) Lefemine v. Wideman
* 568 U.S. 6 (2012) United States v. Bormes
* 568 U.S. 17 (2012) Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard
* 568 U.S. 23 (2012) Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
* 568 U.S. 41 (2012) Kloeckner v. Solis
* 568 U.S. 57 (2013) Ryan v. Valencia Gonzales
* 568 U.S. 78 (2013) Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
* 568 U.S. 85 (2013) Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
* 568 U.S. 106 (2013) Smith v. United States
* 568 U.S. 115 (2013) Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
* 568 U.S. 145 (2013) Sebilius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center
* 568 U.S. 165 (2013) Chafin v. Chafin
* 568 U.S. 186 (2013) Bailey v. United States
* 568 U.S. 216 (2013) Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.
* 568 U.S. 237 (2013) Florida v. Harris
* 568 U.S. 251 (2013) Gunn v. Minton
* 568 U.S. 266 (2013) Henderson v. United States
* 568 U.S. 289 (2013) Johnson v. Williams
* 568 U.S. 313 (2013) Evans v. Michigan
* 568 U.S. 342 (2013) Chaidez v. United States
* 568 U.S. 371 (2013) Marx v. General Revenue Corp.
* 568 U.S. 398 (2013) Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
* 568 U.S. 442 (2013) Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission
* 568 U.S. 455 (2013) Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
* 568 U.S. 503 (2013) Levin v. United States
* 568 U.S. 519 (2013) Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
* 568 U.S. 588 (2013) Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
* 568 U.S. 597 (2013) Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
* 568 U.S. 627 (2013) Wos v. E.M.A.
# United States Reports/Volume 570

* 570 U.S. 1 (2013) Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
* 570 U.S. 48 (2013) Maracich v. Spears
* 570 U.S. 99 (2013) Alleyne v. United States
* 570 U.S. 136 (2013) Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.
* 570 U.S. 178 (2013) Salinas v. Texas
* 570 U.S. 205 (2013) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
* 570 U.S. 228 (2013) American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
* 570 U.S. 254 (2013) Descamps v. United States
* 570 U.S. 297 (2013) Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
* 570 U.S. 338 (2013) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
* 570 U.S. 387 (2013) United States v. Kebodeaux
* 570 U.S. 421 (2013) Vance v. Ball State University
* 570 U.S. 472 (2013) Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett
* 570 U.S. 521 (2013) Ryan v. Schad (per curiam)
* 570 U.S. 529 (2013) Shelby County v. Holder
* 570 U.S. 595 (2013) Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
* 570 U.S. 637 (2013) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
* 570 U.S. 693 (2013) Hollingsworth v. Perry
* 570 U.S. 729 (2013) Sekhar v. United States
* 570 U.S. 744 (2013) United States v. Windsor
# United States Reports/Volume 566

* 566 U.S. 1 (2012) Martinez v. Ryan
* 566 U.S. 30 (2012) Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland
* 566 U.S. 66 (2012) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
* 566 U.S. 93 (2012) Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc.
* 566 U.S. 120 (2012) Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
* 566 U.S. 134 (2012) Missouri v. Frye
* 566 U.S. 156 (2012) Lafler v. Cooper
* 566 U.S. 189 (2012) Zivotofsky v. Clinton
* 566 U.S. 221 (2012) Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds
* 566 U.S. 231 (2012) Setser v. United States
* 566 U.S. 257 (2012) Vartelas v. Holder
* 566 U.S. 284 (2012) Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper
* 566 U.S. 318 (2012) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
* 566 U.S. 356 (2012) Rehberg v. Paulik
* 566 U.S. 376 (2012) Vasquez v. United States (per curiam)
* 566 U.S. 377 (2012) Filarsky v. Delia
* 566 U.S. 399 (2012) Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
* 566 U.S. 431 (2012) Kappos v. Hyatt
* 566 U.S. 449 (2012) Mohamed v. Palestinian Authority
* 566 U.S. 463 (2012) Wood v. Milyard
* 566 U.S. 478 (2012) United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC
* 566 U.S. 506 (2012) Hall v. United States
* 566 U.S. 541 (2012) Astrue v. Capato
* 566 U.S. 560 (2012) Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.
* 566 U.S. 583 (2012) Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez
* 566 U.S. 599 (2012) Blueford v. Arkansas
* 566 U.S. 624 (2012) Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
* 566 U.S. 639 (2012) Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC. v. Amalgamated Bank
* 566 U.S. 650 (2012) Coleman v. Johnson (per curiam)
* 566 U.S. 658 (2012) Reichle v. Howards
* 566 U.S. 673 (2012) Armour v. City of Indianapolis
# United States Reports/Volume 565

* 565 U.S. 1 (2011) Cavazos v. Smith
* 565 U.S. 18 (2011) KPMG LLP v. Cocchi
* 565 U.S. 23 (2011) Bobby v. Dixon
* 565 U.S. 34 (2011) Greene v. Fisher
* 565 U.S. 42 (2011) Judulang v. Holder
* 565 U.S. 65 (2011) Hardy v. Cross
* 565 U.S. 73 (2012) Smith v. Cain
* 565 U.S. 95 (2012) CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood
* 565 U.S. 118 (2012) Minneci v. Pollard
* 565 U.S. 134 (2012) Gonzalez v. Thaler
* 565 U.S. 171 (2012) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
* 565 U.S. 207 (2012) Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
* 565 U.S. 228 (2012) Perry v. New Hampshire
* 565 U.S. 266 (2012) Maples v. Thomas
* 565 U.S. 302 (2012) Golan v. Holder
* 565 U.S. 368 (2012) Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
* 565 U.S. 388 (2012) Perry v. Perez (per curiam)
* 565 U.S. 400 (2012) United States v. Jones
* 565 U.S. 432 (2012) Reynolds v. United States
* 565 U.S. 452 (2012) National Meat Association v. Harris
* 565 U.S. 469 (2012) Ryburn v. Huff (per curiam)
* 565 U.S. 478 (2012) Kawashima v. Holder
* 565 U.S. 499 (2012) Howes v. Fields
* 565 U.S. 520 (2012) Wetzel v. Lambert (per curiam)
* 565 U.S. 530 (2012) Marmet v. Brown (per curiam)
* 565 U.S. 535 (2012) Messerschmidt v. Millender
* 565 U.S. 576 (2012) PPL Montana LLC. v. Montana
* 565 U.S. 606 (2012) Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc.
* 565 U.S. 625 (2012) Kurns v. Railroad Riction Products Corp.
* 565 U.S. 648 (2012) Martel v. Clair
# United States Reports/Volume 567

* 567 U.S. 1 (2012) Elegin v. Department of the Treasury
* 567 U.S. 37 (2012) Parker v. Matthews (per curiam)
* 567 U.S. 50 (2012) Williams v. Illinois
* 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Christoper v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
* 567 U.S. 182 (2012) Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
* 567 U.S. 209 (2012) Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak
* 567 U.S. 239 (2012) Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
* 567 U.S. 260 (2012) Dorsey v. United States
* 567 U.S. 298 (2012) Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
* 567 U.S. 343 (2012) Southern Union Co. v. United States
* 567 U.S. 387 (2012) Arizona v. United States
* 567 U.S. 460 (2012) Miller v. Alabama
* 567 U.S. 516 (2012) American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (per curiam)
* 567 U.S. 519 (2012) National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
* 567 U.S. 709 (2012) United States v. Alvarez
* 567 U.S. 756 (2012) First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards (per curiam)
* 567 U.S. 758 (2012) Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission (per curiam)
* 567 U.S. 1301 (2012) Maryland v. King (Roberts, C.J., in chambers)
# United States Reports/Volume 564

* 564 U.S. 1 (2011) Sykes v. United States
* 564 U.S. 50 (2011) Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
* 564 U.S. 70 (2011) DePierre v. United States
* 564 U.S. 91 (2011) Microsoft Corp. v. 141 Ltd. Partnership
* 564 U.S. 117 (2011) Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan
* 564 U.S. 135 (2011) Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders
* 564 U.S. 162 (2011) United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation
* 564 U.S. 210 (2011) Flores-Villar v. United States (per curiam)
* 564 U.S. 211 (2011) Bond v. United States
* 564 U.S. 229 (2011) Davis v. United States
* 564 U.S. 261 (2011) J.D.B. v. North Carolina
* 564 U.S. 299 (2011) Smith v. Bayer Corp.
* 564 U.S. 319 (2011) Tapia v. United States
* 564 U.S. 338 (2011) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
* 564 U.S. 379 (2011) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
* 564 U.S. 410 (2011) American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut
* 564 U.S. 431 (2011) Turner v. Rogers
* 564 U.S. 462 (2011) Stern v. Marshall
* 564 U.S. 522 (2011) Freeman v. United States
* 564 U.S. 552 (2011) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
* 564 U.S. 604 (2011) PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing
* 564 U.S. 647 (2011) Bullcoming v. New Mexico
* 564 U.S. 685 (2011) CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride
* 564 U.S. 721 (2011) Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
* 564 U.S. 786 (2011) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
* 564 U.S. 873 (2011) J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
* 564 U.S. 915 (2011) Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown
* 564 U.S. 932 (2011) United States v. Juvenile Male (per curiam)
* 564 U.S. 940 (2011) Leal Garcia v. Texas (per curiam)
* 564 U.S. 1301 (2011) Gray v. Kelly (Roberts, C.J., in chambers)
# United States Reports/Volume 572

* 572 U.S. 1 (2014) Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez
* 572 U.S. 25 (2014) BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina
* 572 U.S. 65 (2014) Rosemond v. United States
* 572 U.S. 93 (2014) Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States
* 572 U.S. 118 (2014) Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 141 (2014) United States v. Quality Stores, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 157 (2014) United States v. Castleman
* 572 U.S. 185 (2014) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
* 572 U.S. 273 (2014) Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg
* 572 U.S. 291 (2014) Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
* 572 U.S. 393 (2014) Prado Navarette v. California
* 572 U.S. 415 (2014) White v. Woodall
* 572 U.S. 434 (2014) Paroline v. United States
* 572 U.S. 489 (2014) Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
* 572 U.S. 545 (2014) Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 559 (2014) Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 565 (2014) Town of Greece v. Galloway
* 572 U.S. 639 (2014) Robers v. United States
* 572 U.S. 650 (2014) Tolan v. Cotton (per curiam)
* 572 U.S. 663 (2014) Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 701 (2014) Hall v. Florida
* 572 U.S. 744 (2014) Wood v. Moss
* 572 U.S. 765 (2014) Plumhoff v. Rickard
* 572 U.S. 782 (2014) Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
* 572 U.S. 833 (2014) Martinez v. Illinois (per curiam)
* 572 U.S. 844 (2014) Bond v. United States
* 572 U.S. 898 (2014) Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 915 (2014) Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
* 572 U.S. 1301 (2014) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Roberts, C.J., in chambers)
# United States Reports/Volume 571

* 571 U.S. 1 (2013) Madigan v. Levin (per curiam)
* 571 U.S. 3 (2013) Stanton v. Sims (per curiam)
* 571 U.S. 12 (2013) Burt v. Titlow
* 571 U.S. 28 (2013) Ford Motor Co. v. United States (per curiam)
* 571 U.S. 31 (2013) United States v. Woods
* 571 U.S. 49 (2013) Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
* 571 U.S. 69 (2013) Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs
* 571 U.S. 83 (2013) Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall (per curiam)
* 571 U.S. 87 (2013) Kansas v. Cheever
* 571 U.S. 99 (2013) Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.
* 571 U.S. 117 (2014) Daimler AG v. Bauman
* 571 U.S. 161 (2014) Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.
* 571 U.S. 177 (2014) Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers
* 571 U.S. 191 (2014) Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC
* 571 U.S. 204 (2014) Burrage v. United States
* 571 U.S. 220 (2014) Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp.
* 571 U.S. 237 (2014) Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper
* 571 U.S. 263 (2014) Hinton v. Alabama (per curiam)
* 571 U.S. 277 (2014) Walden v. Fiore
* 571 U.S. 292 (2014) Fernandez v. California
* 571 U.S. 320 (2014) Kaley v. United States
* 571 U.S. 359 (2014) United States v. Apel
* 571 U.S. 377 (2014) Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice
* 571 U.S. 415 (2014) Law v. Siegel
* 571 U.S. 429 (2014) Lawson v. FMR LLC
# United States v. Emery Bird Thayer Realty Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 28
United States v. Emery Bird Thayer Realty Company
Argued: January 12 and 13, 1915. --- Decided: April 5, 1915
Solicitor General Davis and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Albert R. Strother and James G. Smart for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 29 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Everett P. Wheeler as amicus curice.
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. Emholt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 414
United States v. Emholt
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.
This was an information, for the forfeiture of the right, title, and interest of Severin Schulte in certain real estate on which he carried on the business of a distiller, without having given bond as required by law, and with intent to deprive the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him.
In the District Court, held by Judge Bunn, Bernard Emholt and Eliza Bergener appeared and answered as claimants of the real estate under mortgages from Schulte. Upon the trial it was found by special verdict that Schulte was guilty as charged in the information, and that he held the legal title to the real estate, subject to a mortgage to each of the claimants; judgment was given that the mortgages constituted no lien or incumbrance against the United States, and that all the real estate be forfeited; and the claimants appealed to the Circuit Court.
In the Circuit Court, held by Mr. Justice Harlan and Judge Bunn, the judgment was reversed; and a certificate, signed by Mr. Justice Harlan only, was entered of record, stating that the hearing upon the special verdict found in the District Court was, by consent of parties, had before the circuit justice and the district judge, and that they were divided in their opinion on the question whether, upon the facts found in the special verdict, the United States was entitled to judgment forfeiting the property described in the information to the use of the United States, except subject to the interest and claim of the claimants, as set out in their answers. From the judgment of the Circuit Court the district attorney on behalf of the United States, claimed an appeal to this court, which was allowed.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. George C. Hazelton and Mr. S. U. Pinney, contra.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, 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. Embassy Restaurant, Inc.

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 29
United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc.
Argued: Jan. 22, 1959. --- Decided: March 9, 1959
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Richard H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.
Mr. Justice CLARK, 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. Ellsworth

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 170
United States v. Ellsworth
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. J. W. Douglass, contra.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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. Fisher

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Fisher."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Fisher (109 U.S. 143)
* United States v. Fisher (384 U.S. 212)
See also Fisher v. United States.
# United States v. Fish

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 607
United States v. Fish
Argued: April 23, 1925. --- Decided: June 8, 1925
The Attorney General and Mr. Wm. W. Hoppin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. A. R. Brown, of New York City, for respondent.
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
# United States v. Fisher (384 U.S. 212)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 212
United States v. Fisher (384 U.S. 212)
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer, for the United States.
Joseph H. Stamler, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.

## 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. First National Pictures

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 44
United States v. First National Pictures
Argued: Oct. 27, 28, 1930. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1930
The Attorney General and Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 45-46 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Cornelius W. Wickersham and John W. Davis, both of New York City (Messrs. Henry W. Taft, Paxton Blair, Arthur L. Fisk, Jr., and Gabriel L. Hess, all of New York City, on the brief), for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 47-49 intentionally omitted]
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