OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/17th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 14

Chap. XIV.—An Act to extend the charter of the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia.
Charter of Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria extended to March 3, 1836.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act incorporating the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, be, and the same is hereby, extended and limited to the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, under and subject to all limitations, modifications, and conditions, as are enacted and applied to the other incorporated banks of the District of Columbia, by an act, entitled “An act to extend the charters of certain banks in the District of Columbia,” which passed the second day of March, March 2, 1821, ch. 18. one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one.
Stockholders disagreeing from renewal, may compel the bank to refund their stock.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, if any stockholder or stockholders, in said bank, who have not assented to the renewal of the said charter, shall, within two months from the passing of this act, file his or their declaration, in writing, in the said bank, declaring himself or themselves dissatisfied with said renewal, and his or their determination to withdraw his or their interest from the same; and if the said bank cannot agree with such stockholder or stockholders, on the amount of such interest, and shall not forthwith pay the same, then it shall be lawful for the circuit court of the District of Columbia, at Alexandria, on the petition in writing of such stockholder or stockholders, to appoint three commissioners, whose duty it shall be to ascertain the value of the interest of such stockholder or stockholders, in said bank, for which purpose such commissioners shall, under the direction of said court, have access to the books, papers, and accounts, of said bank, and on the report of said commissioners, and such other evidence as may be laid before said court, the said court shall proceed to ascertain the value of the interest of such stockholder or stockholders in said bank and shall adjudge and decree the value so ascertained, to be paid to him or them by the said bank, ​and shall have power to enforce such judgment or decree, by execution, attachment, or other legal process.
This act declared to be a public act. Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act be, and the same is hereby declared to be, a public act, and that so much and such parts of the act incorporating the said Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, as may be repugnant to this act, be, and the same is hereby, repealed and annulled.
Approved, February 21, 1823.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/17th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 15

Chap. XV.—An Act supplementary to the several acts for the adjustment of land claims in the state of Louisiana.
Claims for certain lands in Louisiana confirmed. Act of March 2, 1805, ch. 26. Act of March 3, 1807, ch. 36. Act of May 11, 1820, ch. 87. Claims of lands north of Red river, confirmed.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the claims for lands within the eastern district of the state of Louisiana, described by the register of the land office of the said district, in his report to the Secretary of the Treasury, bearing date the sixth of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, be, and the same are hereby, confirmed, against any claim on the part of the United States.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the claims for lands within the district north of Red river, in the state of Louisiana, described by the register of the land office of the said district, in his report to the Secretary of the Treasury, bearing date the first January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, and included in the first, second, and third, classes of claims, be, and the same are hereby, confirmed against any claim on the part of the United States with the exception of the claims numbered forty and fifty-one in the first class, and of the claims numbered forty-four, forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, and forty-eight, in the said first class, (which are included in the claim of Baron Bastrop.)
Approved, February 28, 1823.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/17th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 1

Chapter I.—An Act authorizing an additional naval force for the suppression of piracy.
President authorized to purchase or construct vessels, to fit, equip, and man them for immediate service, for repressing piracy, &c. Act of March 3, 1825, ch. 101, sec. 2.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 be, and he hereby is, authorized to purchase or construct a sufficient number of vessels, in addition to those now employed, of such burthen and construction as he may deem necessary, and to fit, equip, and man the same for immediate service, for the purpose of repressing piracy, and of affording effectual protection to the citizens and commerce of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico, and the seas and territories adjacent.
Appropriation for such expenditure.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred and sixty thousand dollars be appropriated to meet the expenditure to be incurred as aforesaid, and paid out of any money in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, December 20, 1822.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/17th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 18

Chap. XVIII.—An Act to revive, and continue in force, the seventh section of an act, entitled “An act supplementary to the several acts for the adjustment of land claims in the state of Louisiana,” approved the eleventh May, eighteen hundred and twenty, and for other purposes.
Seventh section of Louisiana land claim law continued in force for eighteen months. Act of May 11, 1820, ch. 87.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the seventh section of an act, entitled “An act supplementary to the several acts for the adjustment of land claims in the state of Louisiana,” approved the eleventh of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, in relation to back concessions, be, and the same is hereby, revived, and continued in full force and effect, for the term of eighteen months from and after the passing of this act.
Part of navy store-house lot in New Orleans, granted to the corporation of that city.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of the lot of land on which is situated the navy store-house, in New Orleans, as may be necessary to continue the street now commenced, leading from Condi street to Market-hall, is hereby granted to, and vested in, the corporation of the city of New Orleans, for the purpose of continuing the said street.
Approved, February 28, 1823.
# United States v. Murphy (70 U.S. 649)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
70 U.S. 649
United States v. Murphy
We are of opinion that under the circumstances of this case, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the cause.
We see no reason in the nature of the transaction, nor in the language of the statute of 8th of August, 1846, under which the remission is supposed by the counsel of the United States to be justified, why a case brought into the District Court by an order of this Kind should not be sent back under proper circumstances. The order can only be made on the motion of the district attorney, or whenever in the opinion of the District Court difficult and important questions of law are involved in the case. There is, therefore, no danger of collision between the courts on account of such orders; and as they tend to the despatch of business, and to sound decisions on legal propositions, there is no reason for limiting the rule further than the language of the statute requires.
As respects the second question.-The defendants were indicted for assaulting an officer while engaged 'in making an enrolment of men subject to do military duty.' This language describes with entire accuracy the offence provided for by the 12th section of the act of February 24, 1864. But the indictment was found before that act was passed. It was found under the 25th section of the act of March 3, 1863, on the supposition that making an enrolment was a service relating to the draft; and the judges divided on the question whether this was so, within the meaning of the last-mentioned act.
If Congress had not passed the amendatory act of February 24, 1864, it might very well have been asserted that making an enrolment of persons liable to draft, was a service relating to the draft; for being a necessary preliminary to putting the draft in force, it bears a very close relation to it. We have, however, held in the case of the United States v. Scott, just preceding, upon a comparison of the 25th section of the act of 1863, with the 12th section of the act of 1864, that the one is limited to the prevention of resistance to the draft, and the other to preventing resistance to the enrolment. Comparing the two acts together, the later one must be held to be a legislative construction of the first, by which a service in relation to the enrolment cannot be held to be a service in relation to the draft.
The first of the questions certified to us must be answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative.
ANSWERS ACCORDINGLY.

## 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. Murray Cook

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 347
United States v. Murray Cook
Argued: Nov. 22, 23, 1927. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1928
Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United states.
Mr. H. C. Wade, of Forth Worth, Tex., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 348-349 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 536
United States v. Murry
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. John N. Oliver, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 476
United States v. Murphy
THESE two cases were appeals from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The cases are stated in the opinion of the court.
They were argued by Mr. Stanton for the appellants.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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. Murphy (64 U.S. 476)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 476
United States v. Murphy
The appellees in these suits were respectively confirmed in their claims to land in the valley of the Sacramento river.
Their applications were made to Micheltorena in 1844; and upon a reference, Captain Sutter reported that the land was vacant. Upon the advice of the secretary, further action was deferred until the Governor could visit that portion of the Department, and leave was given to the petitioner to occupy the land until that time.
In December of that year, the 'general title' to Sutter was issued, and in 1845 or 1846, after the deposition of Micheltorena as Governor, Sutter gave copies of that title to the petitioners. In the testimony of Sutter, in the case of Pratt, he says 'that he applied for the paper a few weeks before the couriers arrived with it; that duplicates were sent to him, and that it was designed as a bounty to the soldiers who had served under him, for their services in the war.'
We have already expressed our opinion upon the merits of this title in several cases, during this and the last term; and it remains only to say that the decrees of the District Court must be reversed, and the causes remanded, with directions to the District Court to dismiss the petition in each.

## 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
# Utopia of Usurers and Other Essays/The Escape

THE ESCAPE
# United States Reports/Volume 529

* 529 U.S. 1 (2000) Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc.
* 529 U.S. 53 (2000) United States v. Johnson (529 U.S. 53)
* 529 U.S. 61 (2000) Portuondo, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility v. Agard
* 529 U.S. 89 (2000) United States v. Locke, Governor of Washington
* 529 U.S. 120 (2000) Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
* 529 U.S. 193 (2000) Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Company
* 529 U.S. 205 (2000) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
* 529 U.S. 217 (2000) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
* 529 U.S. 244 (2000) Garner, Former Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgias v. Jones
* 529 U.S. 266 (2000) Florida v. J. L.
* 529 U.S. 277 (2000) City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.
* 529 U.S. 337 (2000) Bond v. United States
* 529 U.S. 344 (2000) Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Shanklin
* 529 U.S. 420 (2000) Williams v. Taylor, Warden
* 529 U.S. 446 (2000) Edwards, Warden v. Carpenter
* 529 U.S. 460 (2000) Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc.
* 529 U.S. 473 (2000) Slack v. McDaniel, Warden
* 529 U.S. 494 (2000) Beck v. Prupis
* 529 U.S. 513 (2000) Carmell v. Texas
* 529 U.S. 576 (2000) Christensen v. Harris County
* 529 U.S. 598 (2000) United States v. Morrison
* 529 U.S. 644 (2000) Johnson v. United States (529 U.S. 644)
* 529 U.S. 667 (2000) Fischer v. United States
* 529 U.S. 728 (2000) Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior
* 529 U.S. 753 (2000) Ohler v. United States
* 529 U.S. 765 (2000) Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens
* 529 U.S. 803 (2000) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
* 529 U.S. 848 (2000) Jones v. United States (529 U.S. 848)
* 529 U.S. 861 (2000) Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
# United States Reports/Volume 531

* 531 U.S. 1 (2000) Arizona v. California (531 U.S. 1)
* 531 U.S. 4 (2000) Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Bennett
* 531 U.S. 12 (2000) Cleveland v. United States (531 U.S. 12)
* 531 U.S. 32 (2000) City of Indianapoliss v. Edmond
* 531 U.S. 57 (2000) Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America, District 17
* 531 U.S. 70 (2000) Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
* 531 U.S. 79 (2000) Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph
* 531 U.S. 98 (2000) Bush v. Gore
* 531 U.S. 159 (2001) Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
* 531 U.S. 198 (2001) Paul Glover v. United States
* 531 U.S. 206 (2001) David Gitlitzs v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 531 U.S. 225 (2001) Fiore v. White, Warden
* 531 U.S. 230 (2001) Lopez v. Davis, Warden
* 531 U.S. 250 (2001) Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center v. Young
* 531 U.S. 278 (2001) City News and Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha
* 531 U.S. 288 (2001) Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
* 531 U.S. 316 (2001) Director of Revenue of Missouri v. ACB, as successor to the National Bank for Cooperatives
* 531 U.S. 326 (2001) Illinois v. McArthur
* 531 U.S. 341 (2001) Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
* 531 U.S. 356 (2001) Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
* 531 U.S. 425 (2001) Central Green Company v. United States
* 531 U.S. 438 (2001) Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.
* 531 U.S. 457 (2001) Whitman, Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.
* 531 U.S. 497 (2001) Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
# United States Reports/Volume 530

* 530 U.S. 1 (2000) Pegram v. Herdrich
* 530 U.S. 27 (2000) United States v. Hubbell
* 530 U.S. 57 (2000) Troxel v. Granville
* 530 U.S. 120 (2000) Castillo v. United States
* 530 U.S. 156 (2000) Ramdass v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
* 530 U.S. 238 (2000) Harris Trust and Savings Bank, as trustee for the Ameritech Pension Trust v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
* 530 U.S. 255 (2000) Carter v. United States
* 530 U.S. 290 (2000) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
* 530 U.S. 327 (2000) Miller Superintendent Pendleton Correctional Facility v. French
* 530 U.S. 363 (2000) Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts v. National Foreign Trade Council
* 530 U.S. 428 (2000) Dickerson v. United States
* 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Apprendi v. New Jersey
* 530 U.S. 567 (2000) California Democratic Party v. Jones
* 530 U.S. 604 (2000) Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States
* 530 U.S. 640 (2000) Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
* 530 U.S. 703 (2000) Hill v. Colorado
* 530 U.S. 793 (2000) Mitchells v. Helms
* 530 U.S. 914 (2000) Stenberg v. Carhart
# United States Reports/Volume 532

* 532 U.S. 23 (2001) TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
* 532 U.S. 36 (2001) Shafer v. South Carolina
* 532 U.S. 59 (2001) Buford v. United States
* 532 U.S. 67 (2001) Ferguson v. City of Charleston
* 532 U.S. 105 (2001) Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (532 U.S. 105)
* 532 U.S. 141 (2001) Egelhoff v. Egelhoff
* 532 U.S. 162 (2001) Texas v. Cobb
* 532 U.S. 189 (2001) Lujan, Labor Commissioner of Californias v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
* 532 U.S. 200 (2001) United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Company
* 532 U.S. 223 (2001) Alexander, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety v. Sandoval
* 532 U.S. 223 (2001) Shaws v. Murphy
* 532 U.S. 223 (2001) Hunt, Governor of North Carolina v. Cromartie
* 532 U.S. 234 (2001) Easley v. Cromartie
* 532 U.S. 275 (2001) Alexander v. Sandoval
* 532 U.S. 318 (2001) Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
* 532 U.S. 411 (2001) C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma
* 532 U.S. 424 (2001) Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
* 532 U.S. 451 (2001) Rogers v. Tennessee
* 532 U.S. 483 (2001) United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
* 532 U.S. 514 (2001) Bartnicki v. Vopper
* 532 U.S. 557 (2001) United States v. Hatter, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California
* 532 U.S. 588 (2001) The Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc.
* 532 U.S. 598 (2001) Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
* 532 U.S. 645 (2001) Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley
* 532 U.S. 661 (2001) PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin
* 532 U.S. 706 (2001) National Labor Relations Board v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc.
* 532 U.S. 731 (2001) Booth v. Churner
* 532 U.S. 742 (2001) New Hampshire v. Maine
* 532 U.S. 757 (2001) Becker v. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio
* 532 U.S. 774 (2001) Florida v. Thomas
* 532 U.S. 782 (2001) Penry v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
* 532 U.S. 811 (2001) Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation v. Garris
* 532 U.S. 822 (2001) United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States
* 532 U.S. 843 (2001) Pollard v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
# United States Reports/Volume 533

* 533 U.S. 1 (2001) Kansas v. Colorado (533 U.S. 1)
* 533 U.S. 27 (2001) Kyllo v. United States
* 533 U.S. 53 (2001) Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
* 533 U.S. 98 (2001) Good News Clubs v. Milford Central School
* 533 U.S. 146 (2001) Alabama v. Bozeman
* 533 U.S. 158 (2001) Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King
* 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Saucier v. Katz
* 533 U.S. 218 (2001) United States v. Mead Corporation
* 533 U.S. 262 (2001) Idaho v. United States
* 533 U.S. 289 (2001) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr
* 533 U.S. 348 (2001) Calcano-Martinezs v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
* 533 U.S. 353 (2001) Nevada v. Hicks
* 533 U.S. 405 (2001) United States Department of Agriculture v. United Foods, Inc.
* 533 U.S. 431 (2001) Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee
* 533 U.S. 483 (2001) New York Times Company, Inc. v. Tasini
* 533 U.S. 525 (2001) Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts
* 533 U.S. 606 (2001) Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
* 533 U.S. 656 (2001) Tyler v. Cain, Warden
* 533 U.S. 678 (2001) Zadvydas v. Davis
# United States Reports/Volume 534

* 534 U.S. 1 (2001) United States Postal Service v. Gregory
* 534 U.S. 19 (2001) TRW Inc. v. Andrews
* 534 U.S. 61 (2001) Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko
* 534 U.S. 84 (2001) Chickasaw Nation v. United States (534 U.S. 84)
* 534 U.S. 112 (2001) United States v. Knights
* 534 U.S. 124 (2001) J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. dba Farm Advantage, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
* 534 U.S. 161 (2002) Dusenbery v. United States
* 534 U.S. 184 (2002) Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
* 534 U.S. 204 (2002) Great-West Life Annuity Insurance Company v. Knudson
* 534 U.S. 235 (2002) Chao, Secretary of Labor v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.
* 534 U.S. 246 (2002) Kelly v. South Carolina
* 534 U.S. 266 (2002) United States v. Arvizu
* 534 U.S. 279 (2002) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc.
* 534 U.S. 316 (2002) Thomas v. Chicago Park District
* 534 U.S. 327 (2002) National Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power Company
* 534 U.S. 362 (2002) Lee v. Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center
* 534 U.S. 407 (2002) Kansas v. Crane
* 534 U.S. 426 (2002) Owasso Independent School District No. I-011 v. Falvo
* 534 U.S. 473 (2002) Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services v. Blumer
* 534 U.S. 506 (2002) Akos Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
* 534 U.S. 516 (2002) Porter v. Nussle
* 534 U.S. 533 (2000) Raygor v. University of Minnesota
* 534 U.S. 814 (2001) Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc., et al.