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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 484
United States v. Bowling
Argued: April 27, 1921. --- Decided: June 1, 1921
Mr. Leslie C. Garnett, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Mr. Halbert H. McCluer, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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. Boston Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 197
United States v. Boston Insurance Company
Argued: Oct. 9, 1925. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1925
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, and The Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. Abram R. Serven, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
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
# United States v. Taylor

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Taylor."
* 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. Taylor (104 U.S. 216), ( 26 L.Ed. 721 ),
* United States v. Taylor (147 U.S. 695), ( 37 L.Ed. 335 ), ( 13 S.Ct. 479 )
* United States v. Taylor (188 U.S. 283), ( 47 L.Ed. 477 ), ( 23 S.Ct. 412 )
* United States v. Taylor (487 U.S. 326), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Taylor (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
   * listing incomplete
# United States v. Taylor (104 U.S. 216)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 216
United States v. Taylor
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. John S. Blair for the appellant.
Mr. Albert Pike and Mr. Luther H. Pike, contra.
MR. JUSTICE WOODS 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. Taylor (147 U.S. 695)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
147 U.S. 695
United States v. Taylor
Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:
This was a petition by the clerk of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Tennessee for fees earned between July 1, 1887, and December 23, 1889, which had been disallowed in the settlement of the accounts rendered by him to the treasury department. The court directed judgment to be entered in his favor for $1,066, (45 Fed. Rep. 531;) and the United States appealed.
Sol. Gen. Aldrich, for the United States.
Geo. A. King, for appellee.
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. Tateo

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Goldberg
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 463
United States v. Tateo
Argued: April 20, 1964. --- Decided: June 8, 1964
Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Robert Kasanof, New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 186
United States v. Allsbury
It is unnecessary to refer to authorities to show that the liability of the surety cannot exceed that of his principal; and that amount having been fixed by a judgment at law, it formed the rule to determine the sum to be recovered in this suit. The verdict and judgment were competent evidence on behalf of the surety for this purpose; indeed, the highest evidence of the fact. Other questions would have arisen if this judgment had been offered against the surety. The counsel for the government, if desirous of recovering a greater amount, should have postponed the trial of this case till the error had been corrected which was committed in the case against the principal. Then he would have been in a situation to avoid the effect of the erroneous judgment. This is the only question presented on the record.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 186
United States v. Allsbury
ERROR to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
Allsbury had become bound as surety in the official bond of Dashiel, paymaster. Suit having been brought on this bond against Dashiel, and Paschall, one of the sureties, to recover what the United States alleged was due, to wit, $20,085, a defence was set up to part of the claim; and the defence being sustained by the court below, the United States had verdict and judgment for but $10,318.22. Error was taken to that judgment, and the judgment reversed. The case next preceding gives report of the matter.
The present suit was brought on the same official bond of Dashiel, against the personal representatives of Allsbury, another of the sureties. The case came on for trial after the trial, verdict, and judgment, just mentioned, against the principal, and Paschall, the other surety, for $10,318.22.
The judgment was pleaded puis darrein continuance, in this suit, for the purpose of reducing the recovery to that amount.
It was admitted by the court, and instructions given accordingly, and the jury found a verdict for the above sum.
The correctness of what was thus done was the question now here.
Mr. Stanbery, A. G., submitted the case in behalf of the United States. Mr. Paschall, contra.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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. Aluminum Company of America (377 U.S. 271)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 271
United States v. Aluminum Company of America
Argued: April 23, 1964. --- Decided: June 1, 1964
See 84 S.Ct. 1903.
[Syllabus from pages 271-272 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox, for appellant.
Herbert Bergson, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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. Alpers

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 680
United States v. Alpers
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 4, 1949. --- Decided: Feb 6, 1950
Mr. Joseph W. Bishop, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. A. J. Zirpoli, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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. Aluminum Company of America

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Aluminum Company of America."
* 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. Aluminum Company of America (377 U.S. 271)
* United States v. Aluminum Company of America (389 U.S. 49)
See also Aluminum Company of America v. United States.
# Wayman v. Southard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
23 U.S. 1
Wayman v. Southard

## 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
# We

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "We."
* 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.
* We (1921), a dystopian novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin
* We (1927), a novel by Charles Augustus Lindbergh
# Wayne County Board of Review v. Great Lakes Steel Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
300 U.S. 29
Wayne County Board of Review v. Great Lakes Steel Corporation
Argued: Jan. 12, 13, 1937. --- Decided: Feb 1, 1937
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Messrs. Oscar A. Kaufman, Albert E. Champney, and Jason L. Honigman, all of Detroit, Mich., for appellants.
Mr. Prewitt Semmes, of Detroit, Mich., 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
# Wayne United Gas Company v. Owensillinois Glass Company

United States Supreme Court
300 U.S. 131
Wayne United Gas Company v. Owensillinois Glass Company
Argued: Jan. 7, 8, 1937. --- Decided: Feb 1, 1937
Messrs. Robert S. Spilman and Fred O. Blue, both of Charleston, W.Va., for petitioner.
Mr. H. D. Rummel, of Charleston, W.Va., for respondents.
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
# Wayne County Board of Review v. Great Lakes Steel Corporation/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
300 U.S. 29
Wayne County Board of Review v. Great Lakes Steel Corporation
Argued: Jan. 12, 13, 1937. --- Decided: Feb 1, 1937
Appellee brought this suit to restrain the enforcement, in relation to an assessment upon its property, of a statute of Michigan establishing a county board of review. Act No. 33, Public Acts of Michigan, First Extra Session, 1934.
The act established a county board of review of assessments for counties having a population in excess of 500,000. The act was attacked as invalid under both the State and Federal Constitutions. Interlocutory and permanent injunctions were sought. The District Court, three Judges sitting (28 U.S.C. § 380 (28 U.S.C.A. § 380)), held that the requisite jurisdictional amount was in controversy and that there was ground for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
With respect to the State Constitution, appellee contended that the statute, by reason of the requirement as to population, was limited in effect to Wayne county and thus was a local and special act in a case where a general act could be made applicable and violated section 30 of article 5 of the Constitution of Michigan, which provides: 'The Legislature shall pass no local or special act in any case where a general act can be made applicable, and whether a general act can be made applicable shall be a judicial question.'
The District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, composed of three judges especially versed in the jurisprudence of the state, sustained that contention and granted a permanent injunction. Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. Lafferty, 12 F.Supp. 55. We are unable to conclude that the court erred in deciding this question of state law and we accordingly affirm its decree.
Decree affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# We'll Take Care of You All

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Song from the musical Fads and Fancies.
[Verse]
    There's a land far away,
    That's the world's protegè,
    And it calls to us way over there,
    And who ever is wrong,
    or who ever is right,
    We all pity it's grief and despair,
    There the poor wander on
    from the homes that are gone,
    There are children whose fate we deplore.
    Their pale faces haunt us,
    they need us; they want us,
    Those sad little waifs of the war.
[Refrain]
    Boys and girls,
    girls and boys,
    Our hearts go out to you,
    Let us be your mothers,
    and your sisters and your brothers
    till your skies again are blue,
    Let us dry your tears
    and let us sooth your fears!
    with heart and voice we call,
    "Come little children,
    come over the sea,
    and we'll take care of you all."
[Verse]
    In this struggle of kings,
    Where the black Eagle's wings,
    Have obscured the fair light of the sun,
    There the eyes of a child,
    And the voice of a child,
    With all smiles and laughter are done,
    For no fault of their own
    it is they who atone;
    They are homeless and starving today.
    To our arms we'll take them
    and happy we'll make them;
    The world's little playmates are they.
[Refrain]
    Boys and girls,
    girls and boys,
    Our hearts go out to you,
    Let us be your mothers,
    and your sisters and your brothers
    till your skies again are blue,
    Let us dry your tears
    and let us sooth your fears!
    with heart and voice we call,
    "Come little children,
    come over the sea,
    and we'll take care of you all."
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1945, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 78 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Emholt/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 414
United States v. Emholt
This court has no jurisdiction of the question certified. The office and object of a certificate of division of opinion are to bring to this court for determination a question of law upon which the opinions of two judges, competent to take part in the judgment of the Circuit Court, are opposed to each other. By the provisions of sect. 4 of the act of of Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, and of sect. 5 of the act of April 29, 1802, c. 31, re-enacted in the Revised Statutes, sect. 614, upon the hearing in the Circuit Court of an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, the district judge who rendered the decision appealed from, although he may, for the information of the Circuit Court, assign his reasons for that decision, is prohibited from voting or taking part in the judgment of the Circuit Court, and that judgment is to be entered according to the opinion of the judge who is not so disqualified. The provision of sect. 2 of the act of March 2, 1867, c. 185, also incorporated in the same section of the Revised Statutes, which, in order to prevent failure or delay of justice, permits such a case, by consent of parties, to be heard and disposed of by the district judge when alone holding the Circuit Court, has no application when another judge is present. And the provisions of sect. 6 of the act of April 29, 1802, c. 31, and of sect. 1 of the act of June 1, 1872, c. 255, embodied in sects. 650, 652, 693, 697, of the Revised Statutes, do not enlarge the authority of the district judge in this respect. It necessarily follows that the case cannot be brought to this court upon a certificate of division of opinion between the judge who is qualified and the judge who is disqualified to take part in the judgment. United States v. Lancaster, 5 Wheat. 434; Nelson v. Carland, 1 How. 265.
The case cannot be treated as before this court on the appeal from the Circuit Court, without regard to the certificate of division, because it is on the common-law side of that court. If it is to be considered as a civil action, the proper mode of bringing it up is by writ of error, and not by appeal. Bevins v. Ramsey, 11 How. 185; Jones v. La Vallette, 5 Wall. 579. If, according to Clifton v. United States (4 How. 242, 250), it should be treated as in the nature of a criminal proceeding, it is hard to see how it could be brought to this court at all, except upon a certificate of division of opinion. Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503.
Neither the consent of parties nor the allowance of the appeal in the court appealed from can enable this court to review the judgment of that court in any other form of proceeding than the law prescribes. Kelsey v. Forsyth, 21 How. 85; Callan v. May, 2 Black, 541.
This court having no jurisdiction of the case, the appeal must be dismissed, and the case
Remanded to the Circuit 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. Emory

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
314 U.S. 423
United States v. Emory
Argued: Nov. 10, 1941. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1941
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Melvin H. Siegel, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
Mr. Justice BYRNES 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. Employing Lathers Association of Chicago and Vicinity

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 198
United States v. Employing Lathers Association of Chicago and Vicinity
Argued: Feb. 3, 1954. --- Decided: March 8, 1954
Mr. Charles H. Weston, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Leo F. Tierney, Chicago, Ill., for appellees Employing Lathers Ass'n et al.
Messrs. Lester Asher, Nathan M. Cohen and Robert S. Fiffer, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Local No. 74, etc.
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. Employing Plasterers' Association of Chicago

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Minton
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 186
United States v. Employing Plasterers' Association of Chicago
Argued: Feb. 3, 1954. --- Decided: March 8, 1954
Mr. Charles H. Weston, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Thomas M. Thomas, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Employing Plasterers Ass'n.
Mr. Daniel D. Carmell, Chicago, Ill., for appellees Journeymen Plasterers' etc., et al.
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
# Welch v. Mandeville/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
The question upon these pleadings comes to this, whether a nominal plaintiff, suing for the benefit of his assignee, can, by a dismissal of the suit under a collusive agreement with the defendant, create a valid bar against any subsequent suit for the same cause of action.
Courts of law, following in this respect the rules of equity, now take notice of assignments of choses in action, and exert themselves to afford them every support and protection not inconsistent with the established principles and modes of proceeding which govern tribunals acting according to the course of the common law. They will not, therefore, give effect to a release procured by the defendant under a covenous combination with the assignor in fraud of his assignee, nor permit the assignor injuriously to interfere with the conduct of any suit commenced by his assignee to enforce the rights which passed under the assignment. The dismissal of the former suit, stated in the pleadings in the present case, was certainly not a retraxit; and if it had been, it would not have availed the parties, since it was procured by fraud. Admitting a dismissal of a suit, by agreement, to be a good bar to a subsequent suit, (on which we give no opinion,) it can be so only when it is bona fide, and not for the purpose of defeating the rights of third persons. It would be strange indeed, if parties could be allowed, under the protection of its forms, to defeat the whole objects and purposes of the law itself.
It is the unanimous opinion of the court, that the judgment of the circuit court, overruling the replication to the second plea of the defendant, is erroneous, and the same is reversed, and the cause remanded for farther proceedings.

## 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
# Welcome

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Welcome."
* 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.
* "Welcome" (1904), a poem by Florence Earle Coates
* "The Welcome", a poem by Abraham Cowley

## References

* ↑ Published as "Welcome to Dewey" in the Life and Heroic Deeds of Admiral Dewey, Including Battles in the Philippines, & etc. (1899) [an alternate title (same text, different title) of Dewey's biography is The Life of Admiral Dewey and the Conquest of the Philippines, & etc. (1899)]. Previously published as "Welcome" in the 3 September 1898 issue of The Outlook; subsequently published as "Welcome" in Mine and Thine (1904), and as "To the Returning Brave" in Poems Vol. I (1916).
# Welcome (Coates)

"Come home! The Land that sent you forth"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1898), "Welcome" in The Outlook (3 September 1898).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1899), as "Welcome to Dewey" in Life and Heroic Deeds of Admiral Dewey, Including Battles in the Philippines, & etc. (1899)
* Coates, Florence Earle (1904), "Welcome" in Mine and Thine (1904).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), as "To the Returning Brave" in Poems I.

## References

* ↑ View this version at Google Books.
* ↑ An alternate title (same text, different title) of Dewey's biography is The Life of Admiral Dewey and the Conquest of the Philippines, & etc. (1899)