OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Fortier/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 160
United States v. Fortier
Argued: Oct. 10, 1951. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1951
The United States brought this action under the Veterans' Emergency Housing Act of 1946 to compel restitution of allegedly excessive prices charged by respondents in the sale of two houses. The District Court entered judgment for respondents, 89 F.Supp. 708, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, 185 F.2d 608. We granted certiorari, 341 U.S. 925, 71 S.Ct. 796, 95 L.Ed. 1357.
Maximum sales prices for the two houses had been stipulated by respondents in securing the permission to build required under Priorities Regulation 33. Statutory authority for that regulation had been repealed before the sale of respondents' houses, except for a proviso continuing in full force and effect priorities for building materials issued under the Veterans' Emergency Housing Act of 1946. The Government views the maximum prices stipulated by respondents as a condition of construction authorization and priorities assistance that survived repeal under the proviso. We reject this view.
The 1946 Act contained detailed authorization for price restrictions on houses and for priorities on building materials. When that Act was repealed in 1947, Congress provided for veterans' preferences in the sale and rental of housing and for rent ceilings on certain accommodations constructed with the assistance of priorities secured under the 1946 Act. Congress addressed itself to the problem of veterans' housing, but refrained from imposing any price restrictions on the sale of houses. Congress having indicated a contrary purpose, we will not impose such restrictions by implication.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice MINTON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## Notes

* ↑ 50 U.S.C.A.pp. § 1821 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1821 et seq.
* ↑ 10 Fed.Reg. 15301, as amended, 11 Fed.Reg. 6598. Respondents were required to comply with this regulation by Veterans' Housing Program Order No. 1, 11 Fed.Reg. 3190.
* ↑ 50 U.S.C.App., (Supp. IV) § 1881(a), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881(a), in repealing the 1946 Act, provided: 'That any allocations made or committed, or priorities granted for the delivery, of any housing materials or facilities under any regulation or order issued under the authority contained in said Act (said sections), and before the date of enactment of this Act (June 30, 1947), with respect to veterans of World War II, their immediate families, and others, shall remain in full force and effect.'
* ↑ 50 U.S.C.App. (Supp. IV), § 1884(a); id., § 1892(c)(1)(B)(3)(A), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 1884(a), 1892(c)(1)(B)(3)(A).
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. Forrester

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 399
United States v. Forrester
Argued: October 22, 23, 26, 1908. --- Decided: December 14, 1908
Solicitor General Hoyt, Attormey General Bonaparte, and Mr. Edwin L. Lawrence for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John M. Waldron and G. Q. Richmond for defendants in error.
Mr. 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
# Unity (Emerson)

Space is ample, east and west
* Unity in May-day and other pieces (1867)
* Unity in Poems (Household Edition, 1904)
# Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp.

Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., Del. Supr., 651 A.2d 1361 (1995) is the leading case on a board of directors' ability to use defensive measures, such as poison pills or buybacks, to prevent a hostile takeover. The case demonstrates an approach to corporate governance that favors the primacy of the board of directors over the will of the shareholders. Warning: template has been deprecated.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
651 A.2d 1361
UNITRIN, INC., JAMES E. ANNABLE, REUBEN L. HEDLUND, JERROLD V. JEROME, GEORGE A. ROBERTS, FAYEZ S. SAROFIM, HENRY E. SINGLETON and RICHARD C. VIE, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. AMERICAN GENERAL CORP., Plaintiff Below, Appellee. IN RE UNITRIN, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
No. 418 Argued: December 6, 1994 --- Decided: January 11, 1995 --- Released for Publication February 3, 1995.
Richard L. Sutton, Esquire (argued), Thomas R. Hunt, Jr., Esquire, Alan J. Stone, Esquire, and Michael L. Vild, Esquire, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Delaware; Kenneth R. Heitz, Esquire and David I. Gindler, Esquire, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, California, for appellants.
Rodman Ward, Jr., Esquire, Marc B. Tucker, Esquire (argued), R. Michael Lindsey, Esquire, Cathy L. Reese, Esquire, Joseph M. Asher, Esquire, and Herbert W. Mondros, Esquire, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, Delaware; Anna J. Rastor, Esquire, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, New York, for appellee, American General Corporation.
Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire, and Norman M. Monhait, Esquire, of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Wilmington, Delaware; Edward Labaton, Esquire (argued) and Ira A. Schochet, Esquire, of Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, New York, New York, for appellees, Unitrin Shareholders.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Unity

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Unity."
* 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.
* Unity a poem by César Vallejo
* Unity, a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson
# Unity of Good

This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
CONTENTS
| Caution in the Truth | 1 |
| Does God know or behold sin, sickness, and death? | 1 |
| Seedtime and Harvest | 10 |
| Is anything real of which the physical senses are cognizant? | 10 |
| The Deep Things of God | 16 |
| Ways Higher than Our Ways | 20 |
| Rectifications | 24 |
| A Colloquy | 26 |
| The Ego | 34 |
| Soul | 35 |
| There is no Matter? | 39 |
| Sight | 42 |
| Touch | 43 |
| Taste | 43 |
| Force | 44 |
| Is there no Death? | 47 |
| Personal Statements | 56 ​ |
| Credo | 60 |
| Do you believe in God? | 60 |
| Do you believe in Man? | 61 |
| Do you believe in Matter? | 62 |
| What say you of Woman? | 64 |
| What say you of Evil? | 65 |
| Suffering from Others' Thoughts | 69 |
| The Saviour's Mission | 74 |
| Summary | 80 |
UNITY OF GOOD
AND
UNREALITY OF EVIL
BY
MARY BAKER G. EDDY
President of Massachusetts Metaphysical College
FOURTH EDITION
BOSTON
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR
385 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE
1890
COPYRIGHTED BY MARY BAKER G. EDDY
1887
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 76

Chap. LXXVI.—An Act to give effect to patents for public lands issues in the names of deceased persons.
Patents for public lands to issue to heirs, devisees, and assignees.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases where patents for public lands have been or may hereafter be issued, in pursuance of any law of the United States, to a person who had died, or who shall hereafter die, before the date of such patent, the title to the land designated therein shall enure to, and become vested in, the heirs, devisees, or assignees of such deceased patentee, as if the patent had issued to the deceased person during life; and the provisions of this act shall be construed to extend to patents for lands within the Virginia Military District in the state of Ohio.
Approved, May 20, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 77

Chap. LXXVII.—An Act explanatory of the act entitled “An act to prevent defalcations on the part of the disbursing agents of the Government, and for other purposes.”
Act of Jan. 1828, ch. 2, not to apply to pensions.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled “An act to prevent defalcations on the part of the disbursing agents of the Government, and for other purposes,” approved the twenty-fifth of January, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall not be construed to authorize the pension of any pensioner of the United States to be withheld.
Approved, May 20, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 79

Chap. LXXIX.—An Act for the relief of the several corporate cities of the District of Columbia.
Corporations to deposite the stock with the Treasurer of the United States, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That before the said Secretary of the Treasury, shall execute the duties prescribed by the first section of this act, the said corporate authorities of said cities shall deposite in the hands of the said Secretary of the Treasury, the stock in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, held by them respectively; and the said Secretary of the Treasury may, at such time within ten years, as may be most favorable for the sale of said stock, dispose thereof at public sale, and reimburse to the United States such sums as may have been paid under the provisions of this act; and if any surplus remain after said reimbursement, he shall pay over said surplus to said cities, in proportion to the amount of stock now held by them respectively.
Approved, May 20, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 82

Chap. LXXXII.—An Act to provide for the payment of expenses incurred and supplies furnished on account of the militia or volunteers received into the service of the United States for the defence of Florida.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Secretary of War to cause expenses incurred to be paid. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, directed to cause to be paid the expenses that have been incurred, and the supplies that have been furnished, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and the Territory of Florida, on account of the militia or volunteers received into the service of the United States for the defence of Florida.Proviso. Provided, ​That the accounts for these claims shall be examined and audited at the Treasury, as in other cases.
Militia and volunteers regularly discharged, to be paid.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of War be authorized to cause the militia called out to defend East Florida, by Generals Clinch and Hernandez, or by the Governor in Middle and West Florida, and such other militia and volunteers as have been received and mustered into the service of the United States and regularly discharged, to be paid in like manner with the volunteers and militia ordered into service under orders from the War Department.
Approved, May 28, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 7

Chap. VII.—An Act making appropriations, in part, for the support of Government, for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any unappropriated money in the Treasury, viz:
Members of Congress.For pay and mileage of the members of Congress and Delegates, five hundred and fifty-six thousand four hundred and eighty dollars.
Clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives.For pay of the officers and clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, thirty-three thousand seven hundred dollars.
Stationery, &c.For stationery, fuel, printing, and all other incidental and contingent expenses of the Senate, fifty-three thousand seven hundred dollars.
For stationery, fuel, printing, and all other incidental and contingent expenses of the House of Representatives, two hundred thousand dollars.
The said two sums last mentioned, to be applied to the payment of the ordinary expenditures of the Senate and House of Representatives, severally, and to no other purpose.
Approved, February 9, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 81

Chap. LXXXI.—An Act making appropriation for the suppression of hostilities by the Creek Indians.
Appropriation of 500,000 dollars.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to defray any expenses which have been, or may be incurred in suppressing hostilities by the Creek Indians, by calling out, by the President, of any part of the militia of the United States, according to the provisions of the constitution and laws; which sum, if expended, shall be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, conformably to the provisions of theAct of Jan. 2, 1795, ch. 9. Act of April 5, 1832, ch. 64. Act of March 19, 1836, ch. 44. act of Congress, of second of January, seventeen hundred and ninety-five; of the act [of] fifth of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, making appropriations for the support of the army; and of the act of the nineteenth March, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, providing for the payment of volunteers and militia corps in the service of the United States.
Approved, May 23, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 85

Chap. LXXXV.—An Act to provide for the payment of certain pensioners in the States of Virginia and Ohio.
A pension agency to be established at Wheeling.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he hereby is, authorized and empowered to establish a pension agency at the city of Wheeling, in the State of Virginia, for the payment of pensioners of the United States resident in the counties of Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Tyler, Wood, Lewis, Harrison, Randolph, Preston, and Monongalia, in Virginia, and Belmont, Jefferson, Guernsey, Harrison, and Monroe, in the State of Ohio:Proviso. Provided, That the establishment of such agency can be made and continued without charge to the United States.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, authorized to make the necessary arrangement for the payment of said pensioners.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and after the first day of August, eighteen hundred and thirty-six.
Approved, June 7, 1836.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/24th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 86

Chap. LXXXVI.—An Act to extend the western boundary of the State of Missouri to the Missouri river.
The western boundary of the State extended. Act of March 6, 1820, ch. 22, sec. 2. See Proclamation, Appendix No. 1. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when the Indian title to all the lands lying between the State of Missouri and the Missouri river shall be extinguished, the jurisdiction over said lands shall be hereby ceded to the State of Missouri, and the western boundary of said State shall be then extended to the Missouri river, reserving to the United States the original right of soil in said lands, and of disposing of the same: Provided, That this act shall not take effect until the President shall by proclamation, declare that the Indian title to said lands has been extinguished; nor shall it take effect until the State of Missouri shall have assented to the provisions of this act.
Approved, June 7, 1836.
# United States v. Powell

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Powell."
* 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. Powell (81 U.S. 493)
* United States v. Powell (330 U.S. 238)
* United States v. Powell (379 U.S. 48)
See also Powell v. United States.
# United States v. Powell (330 U.S. 238)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
330 U.S. 238
United States v. Powell (330 U.S. 238)
Argued: Jan. 13, 1947. --- Decided: March 3, 1947
Mr. Robert L. Werner, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas L. Preston, of Norfolk, Va., for respondents Powell and others.
Mr. Thomas W. Davis, of Wilmington, N.C., for respondent Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
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. Power

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 536
United States v. Power
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
No brief filed or argument made for defendant in error.
MILLER, 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. Powell (379 U.S. 48)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 48
United States v. Powell (379 U.S. 48)
Argued: Oct. 14 and 15, 1964. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1964
Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Bernard G. Segal, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.
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. Powell (379 U.S. 48)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 48
United States v. Powell (379 U.S. 48)
Argued: Oct. 14 and 15, 1964. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1964
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice GOLDBERG concur, dissenting.
Congress, by the three-year statute of limitations that bars assessments of tax deficiencies except (so far as relevant here) in case of fraud, 26 U.S.C. §§ 6501(a) and (c), has brought into being a 'statute of repose' that I would respect more highly than my Brethren. I would respect it by requiring the District Court to be satisfied that the Service is not acting capriciously in reopening the closed tax period. Since the agency must go to the court for process to compel the production of the records for the closed tax period, I would insist that the District Court act in a judicial capacity, free to disagree with the administrative decision unless that minimum standard is met.
Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614, does not seem to me to be relevant. It dealt with the usual investigative powers of administrative agencies; and as the Court said in that case, Congress set no standards for administrative action which the judiciary first had to weigh and appraise. Id., 215-216, 66 S.Ct. 508-509. Here we have a congressional 'statute of repose' embodied in the three-year statute of limitations. I would make it meaningful by protecting it from invasion by mere administrative fiat. Where the limitations period has expired, an examination is presumptively 'unnecessary' within the meaning of § 7605(b)-a presumption the Service must overcome. That is to say, a re-examination of the taxpayer's records after the three-year period is 'unnecessary' within the meaning of § 7605(b), unless the District Court is shown something more than mere caprice for believing fraud was practiced on the revenue. Without that minimum safeguard the statutory status of repose becomes rather meaningless.

## Notes

* ↑ See the remarks of Senators Smith, Ashurst, and Reed in 67 Cong.Rec. 3852-3853.
* ↑ The First Circuit requires the Commissioner to show that 'a reasonable basis exists for a suspicion of fraud,' O'Connor v. O'Connell, 253 F.2d 365, 370; the Ninth Circuit requires that the decision to investigate for fraud appear as 'a matter of rational judgment based on the circumstances of the particulr case,' De Masters v. Arend, 313 F.2d 79, 90; the Third Circuit requires that the agent's suspicion of fraud be 'reasonable' in the eyes of the District Court. 325 F.2d 914, 916.
* ↑ The case is more like United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 70 S.Ct. 357, where, as respects the power of the Federal Trade Commission to require issuance of 'special' reports, the Court reserved the right to prevent the 'arbitrary' exercise of that administrative power. Id., at 654, 70 S.Ct. at 369.
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. Kaplan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 195
United States v. Kaplan
Argued: March 3, 4, 1938. --- Decided: May 2, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Edward J. Ennis, of New York City, for the United States.
Mr. Llewellyn A. Luce, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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 v. Kapp

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 214
United States v. Kapp
Argued: Nov. 12, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1937
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Brien McMahon, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Wm. J. Hughes, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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