OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Alabama (362 U.S. 602)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 602
United States v. Alabama (362 U.S. 602)
Argued: May 2, 1960. --- Decided: May 16, 1960
See 363 U.S. 857, 80 S.Ct. 1608.
Solicitor General J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Gordon Madison, Montgomery, Ala., and Nicholas S. Hare, Monroeville, Ala., for respondents.
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. Alabama (123 U.S. 39)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 39
United States v. Alabama
Atty. Gen. Garland, for appellant.
Van H. Manning, for appellee.
FIELD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Alabama (123 U.S. 39)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 39
United States v. Alabama
The questions presented in these cases are covered by the decision in the case of U.S. v. Louisiana, ante, 17, and, in conformity with it, the judgments in them must be affirmed. So ordered.

## 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
# Tribute to David Mitchell

Tribute to David Mitchell. Congressional Record. March 28, 2006. Extensions of Remarks. Page E416. DOCID:cr28mr06-32. (available online)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David Mitchell of Pt. Reyes Station, California, who recently retired after 30 years as the editor and publisher of the Point Reyes Light. The Light has covered community activities, misdeeds, and controversies in the rural small towns of West Marin since 1975.
Dave earned a degree in journalism at Stanford University and worked at various small papers before buying the Light with his former wife Cathy. After the couple split up in 1981, Dave sold the paper and worked for the San Francisco Examiner for several years before getting the paper back due to payment default.
Described as everything from "intelligent, scrappy, and folksy" to "controversial, opinionated, and hard-headed," Dave always presented the news in a lively, personal manner and encouraged his readers to participate through letters and columns. He considered himself a muckraker and determinedly pursued deceit and corruption where he saw it. In 1979 he and Cathy won a Pulitzer Prize for their expose of the Synanon cult.
West Marin has changed during Dave's tenure, and the Light chronicled issues such as politics, immigration (even sending reporters to the Azores, Italy, and Jalisco, Mexico, where many were from), relations between Point Reyes National Seashore and the community, and the struggles of ranchers to remain viable as the towns became more gentrified. The paper was always challenged financially as Dave used an inheritance to subsidize it, and he sometimes suffered from severe burn-out as he worked long hours to keep both the finances and the news activities in line. After achieving financial stability, he sold the paper in November, 2005, to Robert Plotkin who made a commitment to maintain its community focus.
Mr. Speaker, David Mitchell has provided a vital service to West Marin as well as setting high standards for community newspapers. I know he will continue as a fixture on the local scene and maintain his passion for the issues he championed.
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
# Tribute to Dr. Cheryl A. McConnell

Delivered on the floor of the United States Senate on September 6, 2023
Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Cheryl A. McConnell on her historic inauguration as the 29th and first female president of Saint Joseph's University. She is to be inaugurated on September 8, 2023.
Since joining Saint Joseph's University 3 years ago, Dr. McConnell has served in integral roles as provost and senior vice president for academic affairs. Her presidential inauguration is the result of an exceptional 35-year career in higher education.
As a first-generation college graduate and dedicated leader of Jesuit higher education, Dr. McConnell has demonstrated her commitment to learning and uplifting the next generation. Among her many accomplishments, she has created new, in-demand academic programs to expand Saint Joseph's University's impact throughout the greater Philadelphia community and has focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion to create a more robust and productive learning environment. Further, in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McConnell's leadership was essential to the university's response to keep students, faculty, and staff healthy and safe.
I am proud that Saint Joseph's University has selected Dr. McConnell as its next president and know she will continue the university's commitment to academic excellence and service to generations of students.
I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Cheryl A. McConnell on her historic inauguration and continuing her career in public service to students in Pennsylvania.
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
# Tribute to C. Dixon Osburn

Source: 2007 Congressional Record, Vol. 153, Page E1047
Tribute to C. Dixon Osburn
HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN
OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, today I pay tribute to C. Dixon Osburn, co-founder and executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for 13 years. Dixon recently left the helm of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and today I recognize and commend him for the contributions he has made to our nation's Armed Forces and to our nation's enduring goal of freedom and equality under the law for all Americans.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is a non-profit legal aid and advocacy organization founded in 1993 to assist service members living under the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute that became the law in my first months of serving in the United States Congress. Under Dixon's leadership, the organization has responded to more than 8,000 requests for assistance, and continues today to be a leader of the national movement to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I am proud to have worked with Dixon Osburn toward the goal of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This law has resulted in the discharge of more than 11,000 service members from our Armed Forces, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It is an affront to the patriotism and talent of the over one million lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans estimated to have served in our nation's Armed Forces to date.
I am proud to serve as the sponsor of legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and I commend Dixon Osburn for all he has done to help lay the ground work for the passage of this important legislation.
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
# Tribute to C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of SLDN

Source: 2003 Congressional Record, Vol. 149, Page E1912
Tribute to C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of SLDN
HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN
OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 29, 2003
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, this November marks 10 years since our Nation imposed the discriminatory law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the lesbian, gay and bisexual patriots of our Nation. During the past decade, almost 10,000 men and women have been fired from our armed forces simply because of their sexual orientation.
Many of those men and women have sought the assistance and advocacy of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), the Nation's only legal aid and advocacy organization for those harmed by the military's gay ban. In August, SLDN's Executive Director, C. Dixon Osburn, commemorated 10 years of service to the organization he founded and the brave Americans it serves. Mr. Osburn co-founded the organization in 1993 with former Army Captain Michelle Benecke.
Under Mr. Osburn's leadership, SLDN has provided legal services to 5,000 service members and obtained 35 changes in military policy and practice related to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass." Also under his leadership, SLDN's policy efforts have included obtaining new Pentagon and Service policies on anti-gay harassment, an Executive Order on hate crimes in the military and an Executive Order providing, for the first time, a limited psychotherapist privilege in the armed forces.
Due in large part to Mr. Osburn's work, The Boston Globe has said "[SLDN] knows far more than the Pentagon about what reality is like in the military and helps individuals caught in the mess." Deb Price of The Detroit News also commended their work, noting that: "SLDN has repeatedly forced the Pentagon not just to take notice, but to change." And The Nation reports, "It's amazing how much this small legal-aid group has accomplished already."
Mr. Osburn received the 1994 GAYLAW Distinguished National Service Award, and the 1998 Kevin Larkin Award for Public Service from the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. In 1998, Mr. Osburn was named by The Advocate magazine as one of the Top 10 National Gay Leaders. In 2000, under Mr. Osburn's leadership, SLDN received "Organization of the Year" awards from both the District of Columbia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division and the International Lesbian & Gay Museum of History. I am honored today to recognize his decade of leadership at the helm of SLDN and his unparalleled advocacy for our men and women in uniform.
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
# Tribute to Dr. Paul R. Jones

Source: 2003 Congressional Record, Vol. 149, Page E2271
Tribute to Dr. Paul R. Jones
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Chemistry Week to recognize Dr. Paul R. Jones from the University of North Texas, which is located in my district, for his outstanding career as an educator and researcher in the field of Organic Chemistry.
On Tuesday, Congress voted to pass H. Res. 395 that recognized the importance of national contributions made by those involved with the field of chemistry. I am proud to recognize the work of Dr. Paul R. Jones.
As a student at The University of North Texas, I had the opportunity to take one of Dr. Jones Chemistry courses which helped inspire me to pursue a career in medicine. Dr. Jones received his PhD from Purdue University in 1966 and has taught at The University of North Texas for the last thirty-five years. While educating eager students, Dr. Jones served as an officer in the American Chemistry Society and the Alpha Chi Sigma Professional Chemistry Fraternity.
Dr. Jones once said that the greatest fulfillment he gets out of life is seeing his students succeed; and I am here to say that his work as an educator truly did inspire me, and I'm sure countless other students. Dr. Paul R. Jones should serve as motivation for other educators.
Once again, I'd like to express my gratitude to Dr. Paul R. Jones for his dedication to the field of Chemistry, and for the knowledge he provided to me and thousands of other students over his long, successful career at The University of North Texas.
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. Rosenburgh

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
74 U.S. 580
United States v. Rosenburgh
ON certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Judiciary Act of 1802 provides that whenever any question shall occur before a Circuit Court, upon which the opinion of the judges shall be opposed, the point upon which the disagreement shall happen, may be certified to this court, and shall by it be finally decided.
With this statute in force, one Rosenburgh was indicted in the court below, for an offence alleged to be within an act of Congress specified. A motion being made to quash the indictment, on the ground, among others, that upon the true interpretation of the act under which the indictment was made, no offence had been committed, and that the indictment was insufficient, a division of opinion on these points existed between the judges, involving, of course, a division as to whether the motion to quash ought or ought not to be granted.
The division upon the meaning of the act, and upon the sufficiency of the indictment, being certified, these points were argued. But it appearing, also, that they arose upon a motion to quash, a preliminary question-one, as the result proved, which rendered the decision of the other questions unnecessary-was suggested here; the question, namely, whether this court could, under the above-quoted Judiciary Act of 1802, take cognizance of a certificate of division upon a motion to quash an indictment.
Mr. Evarts, Attorney-General, for the United States.
Mr. E. W. Stoughton, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE 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. Rosenwasser

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 360
United States v. Rosenwasser
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 12, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1945
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
Mr. Ralph F. Fuchs, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Victor Behrstock, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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. Rompel

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
326 U.S. 367
United States v. Rompel
Argued: Nov. 5, 6, 1945. --- Decided: Dec 10, 1945
See 327 U.S. 814, 66 S.Ct. 526.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
Mr. Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Messrs. Harry C. Weeks, of Fort Worth, Tex., and J. Paul Jackson, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Mr. Palmer Hutcheson, of Houston, Tex., for the State of Texas, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.
Mr. Chief 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. Williams

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Williams."
* 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.
* United States v. Williams (188 U.S. 485), ( 47 L.Ed. 554 ), ( 23 S.Ct. 363 )
* United States v. Williams (278 U.S. 255), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Williams (302 U.S. 46), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Williams (341 U.S. 58), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Williams (341 U.S. 70), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Williams (514 U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
   * listing incomplete
# United States v. William B Hammers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
221 U.S. 220
United States v. William B Hammers
Argued: April 12 and 13, 1911. --- Decided: May 15, 1911
Mr. Ernest Knaebel for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. L. H. Valentine and Nathan Newby for defendant in error.
Messrs. Oscar A. Trippet, J. M. Eshleman, LeCompte Davis, and William C. Prentiss as amici curioe.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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. Pewee Coal Company/Dissent Burton

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Reed
* Dissenting Opinion Burton
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 114
United States v. Pewee Coal Company
Argued: Jan. 2, 3, 1951. --- Decided: April 30, 1951
Mr. Justice BURTON, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice MINTON concur, dissenting.
I agree that there was a 'taking' of the mining property from May 1 to October 12, 1943, but I find no ground for allowing the respondent to recover the sum here sought as compensation for such taking.
This case is within the principle stated in Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 280, 282, 46 S.Ct. 253, 254, 70 L.Ed. 585, as follows: '(E)ven if there was technically a taking, the judgment for defendant was right. Nothing was recoverable as just compensation, because nothing of value was taken from the company; and it was not subjected by the Government to pecuniary loss. Nominal damages are not recoverable in the Court of Claims.'
Here there is no showing by the company of any rental value due it as compensation for the Government's possession of its properties. There is no showing that anything of compensable value was taken by the Government from the company, or that the Government subjected the company to any pecuniary loss. The dissenting judge in the Court of Claims pointed out that-'This extra expense consisted of an increased vacation allowance to the plaintiff's workmen, and the refund to them of occupational charges like rentals on mine lamps. The court has not found that the plaintiff (company) could have operated its mine without making the concessions directed by the War Labor Board, nor has it found what the losses to the plaintiff would have been if the Government had not intervened and the strike had continued. I think that the court is not justified in awarding the plaintiff the amount of these expenditures when it does not and, I think, could not, find that the plaintiff was, in fact, financially harmed by the Government's acts.' 88 F.Supp. at page 431, 115 Ct.Cl. at pages 678-679.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims and allow no recovery by the respondent.

## 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. Pfitsch

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 547
United States v. Pfitsch
Argued: March 22, 1921. ---
Restored to Docket for Reargument on Question of Jurisdiction April 11, 1921.
Reargued and Submitted April 25, 1921.
Decided June 1, 1921.
The Attorney General, for the United States.
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 v. Phellis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156 (1921), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that shares in a subsidiary corporation issued to stockholders in the parent corporation were taxable as income. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark McReynolds
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 156
United States v. Phellis
Argued: Oct. 11, 1921. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1921
Mr. James M. Beck, Solicitor General, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 157-161 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Wm. A. Glasgow, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., and Frank S. Bright, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 161-165 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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. Phelps (107 U.S. 320)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
107 U.S. 320
United States v. Phelps
[Syllabus from page 320 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 320-321 intentionally omitted]
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from 321-322 intentionally omitted]
Charles M. Da Costa, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. J.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Clark McReynolds
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 156
United States v. Phellis
No. 260 Argued: Oct. 11, 1921. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1921
​Mr. Justice McReynolds, dissenting.
In the course of its opinion, citing Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 213, the Court of Claims declared:
"We think the whole transaction is to be regarded as merely a financial reorganization of the business of the company and that this view is justified by the power and duty of the court to look through the form of the ​transaction to its substance." And further, "It seems incredible that Congress intended to tax as income a business transaction which admittedly produced no gain, no profit, and hence no income. If any income had accrued to the plaintiff by reason of the sale and exchange made it would doubtless be taxable."
There were perfectly good reasons for the reorganization and the good faith of the parties is not questioned. I assume that the statute was not intended to put an embargo upon legitimate reorganizations when deemed essential for carrying on important enterprises. Eisner v. Macomber was rightly decided and the principle which I think it announced seems in conflict with the decision just announced.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter concurs in this dissent.
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. Phelps

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Phelps."
* 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. Phelps (33 U.S. 700)
* United States v. Phelps (107 U.S. 320)
See also Phelps v. United States.