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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Alger."
* 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. Alger (151 U.S. 362)
* United States v. Alger (152 U.S. 384)
# United States v. Alger (152 U.S. 384)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
152 U.S. 384
United States v. Alger
Wm. A. Maury, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 385-396 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice GRAY 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. Algoma Lumber Company Same

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 415
United States v. Algoma Lumber Company Same
Argued: Dec. 16, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1939
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Paul A. Sweeney, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Carl D. Matz, of Kansas City, Mo., and William S. Bennet, of New York City, for respondents in Nos. 245 and 246.
Mr. Ralph H. Case, of Washington, D.C., for respondent in No. 247.
Mr. Justice STONE 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. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corporation

Supreme Court of the United States
406 U.S. 742
United States et al. v. Alleghany-Ludlum Steel Corp. et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
No. 71-227. Argued: March 27, 1972 --- Decided: June 7, 1972
1. Two "car service rules" promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), requiring generally that unloaded freight cars be returned in the direction of the owning railroad, are "reasonable" under the Esch Car Service Act of 1917, in view of the ICC's finding, for which there is substantial record support, of a national freight car shortage, and its conclusion that the shortage could be alleviated by mandatory observance of the rules, which would give the railroads greater use of their cars and provide an incentive for the purchase of new equipment. Pp. 744-755.
2. The ICC proceeding in this case was governed by, and fully complied with, § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Pp. 756-758.
325 F. Supp. 352, reversed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Samuel Huntington argued the cause for the United States et al. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Acting Assistant Attorney General Comegys, Fritz R. Kahn, Betty Jo Christian, and James F. Tao.
Max O. Truitt, Jr., and William M. Moloney argued the cause for appellees. With Mr. Truitt on the brief for appellees Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp. et al. was Sally Katzen. With Mr. Moloney on the brief for appellee Association of American Railroads were James I. Collier, Jr., and Gordon E. Neuenschwander. John F. Donelan filed a brief for appellee National Industrial Traffic League.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on the acquisition of property in Denmark

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to settle certain particular problems relating to Denmark,
HAVE AGREED UPON the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Treaty, Denmark may maintain the existing legislation on the acquisition of second homes.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of the Treaty establishing the European Community

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to lay down the details of the convergence criteria which shall guide the Community in taking decisions on the passage to the third stage of economic and monetary union, referred to in Article 109j(1) of this Treaty,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:

### Article 1

The criterion on price stability referred to in the first indent of Article 109j(1) of this Treaty shall mean that a Member State has a price performance that is sustainable and an average rate of inflation, observed over a period of one year before the examination, that does not exceed by more than 1.5 percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability. Inflation shall be measured by means of the consumer price index on a comparable basis, taking into account differences in national definitions.

### Article 2

The criterion on the government budgetary position referred to in the second indent of Article 109j(1) of this Treaty shall mean that at the time of the examination the Member State is not the subject of a Council decision under Article 104c(6) of this Treaty that an excessive deficit exists.

### Article 3

The criterion on participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System referred to in the third indent of Article 109j(1) of this Treaty shall mean that a Member State has respected the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System without severe tensions for at least the last two years before the examination. In particular, the Member State shall not have devalued its currency's bilateral central rate against any other Member State's currency on its own initiative for the same period.

### Article 4

The criterion on the convergence of interest rates referred to in the fourth indent of Article 109j(1) of this Treaty shall mean that, observed over a period of one year before the examination, a Member State has had an average nominal long-term interest rate that does not exceed by more than 2 percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability. Interest rates shall be measured on the basis of long term government bonds or comparable securities, taking into account differences in national definitions.

### Article 5

The statistical data to be used for the application of this Protocol shall be provided by the Commission.

### Article 6

The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the EMI or the ECB as the case may be, and the Committee referred to in Article 109c, adopt appropriate provisions to lay down the details of the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of this Treaty, which shall then replace this Protocol.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to lay down the details of the excessive deficit procedure referred to in Article 104c of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:

### Article 1

The reference values referred to in Article 104c(2) of this Treaty are:
- 3% for the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product at market prices; - 60% for the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product at market prices.

### Article 2

In Article 104c of this Treaty and in this Protocol:
- government means general government, that is central government, regional or local government and social security funds, to the exclusion of commercial operations, as defined in the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts;
- deficit means net borrowing as defined in the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts;
- investment means gross fixed capital formation as defined in the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts;
- debt means total gross debt at nominal value outstanding at the end of the year and consolidated between and within the sectors of general government as defined in the first indent.

### Article 3

In order to ensure the effectiveness of the excessive deficit procedure, the governments of the Member States shall be responsible under this procedure for the deficits of general government as defined in the first indent of Article 2. The Member States shall ensure that national procedures in the budgetary area enable them to meet their obligations in this area deriving from this Treaty. The Member States shall report their planned and actual deficits and the levels of their debt promptly and regularly to the Commission.

### Article 4

The statistical data to be used for the application of this Protocol shall be provided by the Commission.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to this Treaty establishing the European Community:
The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions shall have a common organizational structure.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on the transition to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
Declare the irreversible character of the Community's movement to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union by signing the new Treaty provisions on Economic and Monetary Union.
Therefore all Member States shall, whether they fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency or not, respect the will for the Community to enter swiftly into the third stage, and therefore no Member State shall prevent the entering into the third stage.
If by the end of 1997 the date of the beginning of the third stage has not been set, the Member States concerned, the Community institutions and other bodies involved shall expedite all preparatory work during 1998, in order to enable the Community to enter the third stage irrevocably on 1 January 1999 and to enable the ECB and the ESCB to start their full functioning from this date.
This Protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community.
# United States v. $124,700

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that was handed down on August 18, 2006. Although it is usual for persons, rather than property, to be sued in court, the controversial doctrine of asset forfeiture does allow a piece of property (in this case, $124,700 in cash) to be directly sued by and forfeited to the government, without either just compensation or the owner being convicted of a crime.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
458 F.3d 822
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
$124,700, IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant/Appellee,
Manuel Gomez; Andres Madrigal Morgan; Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, Claimants/Appellees.
No. 05-3295.
United States Court of Appeals
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2006.
Filed: August 18, 2006.
* Nancy A. Svoboda, argued, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Omaha, NE, for appellant.
* Michael J. McCabe, argued, San Diego, CA, for appellee.
* Before ARNOLD, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
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. 150 Crates of Earthen Ware/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
In this case the libel alleges that the goods in question were exported from Bordeaux in France, and entered at the office of the collector of the customs at New Orleans, and that they were invoiced at a less sum than the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties thereon, contrary to the provisions of the 66th section of the collection law of 1799, ch. 128. It appears in the case, that the goods were originally shipped from Liverpool, and were landed at Bordeaux. All question as to continuity of voyage, and as to whether Liverpool or Bordeaux ought to be deemed the place of exporation, is out of the case, because the information charges the goods to have been exported from Bordeaux. Upon the evidence, it appears that the goods were invoiced at sixty or seventy per cent. below the price in New-Orleans; which it is supposed was at least as high as the price would have been in Liverpool: But it also appears that goods of this kind, at the time of their exportation from Bordeaux, were depreciated in value to an equal degree: And it is proved that the same goods were offered to a witness at 50 per cent. below their cost at Liverpool. The court is, therefore, not satisfied that the goods were invoiced below their true value at Bordeaux, with a design to evade the lawful duties; and the inquiry as to their value in the port from which they were originally shipped is excluded by the form in which the libel is drawn. The decree of the district court, restoring the goods to the claimant, is, therefore, affirmed.
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
# United States v. 150 Crates of Earthen Ware

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
16 U.S. 232
United States v. 150 Crates of Earthen Ware
APPEAL from the district court of Louisiana.
This cause was argued by the Attorney-General for the United States, and Mr. D. B. Ogden for the claimant.
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL 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. Darby

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Darby."
* 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. Darby (289 U.S. 224)
* United States v. Darby (312 U.S. 100)
* United States v. Darby (312 U.S. 657)
# United States v. Daniel J Rimer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 547
United States v. Daniel J Rimer
Argued: April 26, 1911. --- Decided: May 15, 1911
The petition presented by the United States in this case for the allowance of a writ of certiorari, which was not opposed, proceeded upon the basis that the decision below involved a principle concerning the collection of internal revenue taxes of farreaching importance, and which, if thereafter applied in accordance with what it was urged was the rule established by the lower court, would overthrow practices prevailing as to the collection of internal revenue taxes for a long period of time, founded upon a well-settled administrative construction, and thus produce at least great confusion.
As the record at least prima facie tended to sustain these contentions of the government, the writ of certiorari was granted. With candor, in the argument at bar, while perspicuously discussing the legal propositions which it was deemed were involved when the certiorari was petitioned for, the government conceded that a closer scrutiny of the record made it exceedingly doubtful whether the action of the court below, when accurately tested, dealt with the principle which it was deemed rendered the granting of the writ necessary. Coming to consider the record, we conclude that it establishes that the doubt suggested by the government is well founded, and therefore, if we were to consider and decide the case, we would but review the action of the court below in regard to a question as to which, under the judiciary act of 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 488], the action of the court was final, and which, neither from its character nor importance, was within the scope of the grant of power to review by certiorari.
After giving the matter most careful consideration because of the precedent as to future cases which must arise from the action we take in this, we have concluded that, under the conditions which we have stated, our duty is not to pass upon the merits of the case, but to dismiss the writ of certiorari. Our order will therefore be, writ of certiorari 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. Daniel J Rimer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 547
United States v. Daniel J Rimer
Argued: April 26, 1911. --- Decided: May 15, 1911
Solicitor General Lehmann for the United States.
No appearance for respondents.
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. Daniel

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Daniel."
* 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. Daniel (19 U.S. 542)
* United States v. Daniel (47 U.S. 11)
# United States v. Darby (289 U.S. 224)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 224
United States v. Darby (289 U.S. 224)
Argued: March 14, 1933. --- Decided: April 10, 1933
The Attorney General and Mr. Whitney North Seymour, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Lucien H. Mercier, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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. D'Auterieve

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Curtis
United States Supreme Court
56 U.S. 14
United States v. D'Auterieve

## 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. D'Auterive

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
51 U.S. 609
United States v. D'Auterive

## 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. Dakota-Montana Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 459
United States v. Dakota-Montana Oil Company
Argued: Feb. 8, 1933. --- Decided: March 13, 1933
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Herman J. Galloway, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STONE 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 Bilokumsky v. Tod

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 149
United States Bilokumsky v. Tod
Argued: Oct. 19, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1923
Mr. Walter Nelles, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. George Ross Hull, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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 1/5th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 16

Chap. ⅩⅥ.—An Act authorizing the purchase of Timber for naval purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to direct a sum not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any monies in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, to be laid out in the purchase of growing or other timber, or of lands on which timber is growing, suitable for the navy, and to cause the proper measures to be taken to have the same preserved for the future uses of the navy.
Approved, February 25, 1799.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/5th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 21

Chap. ⅩⅩⅠ.—An Act altering the time of holding the District Court in Vermont.
1802, ch. 31. 1816, ch. 31.Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the session of the district court for the district of Vermont, by law appointed to be holden at Rutland in said district on the first Monday of May annually, shall hereafter be holden at Rutland in said district on the second Monday of May annually.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all process which shall have been issued, and all recognizances returnable, and all suits and other proceedings which have been continued to the said district court on the first Monday of May next, shall be returned and held continued to the said court on the second Monday of May next.
Approved, February 28, 1799.