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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 33
United States v. Hirsch
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
An indictment, consisting of four counts, was found, Feb. 3, 1877, against Hiram Hirsch and others, who pleaded that the offences therein charged had been committed more than three years before the finding of the indictment.
The first count was drawn under sect. 5440, Rev. State., and charges the defendant with a conspiracy, entered into on the first day of September, 1873, to defraud the United States out of the duties on certain described merchandise to be thereafterwards imported into the United States.
The second count charges a conspiracy, entered into on the thirteenth day of September, 1873, to defraud the United States out of duties on certain merchandise theretofore imported into the United States. The remaining counts were drawn under sect. 5445, and charge that the defendants knowingly effected an entry of the goods at the custom-house, by a fraudulent invoice of them, and by a false classification as to their quality and value.
The United States demurred to the plea, and the judges of the Circuit Court were divided in opinion upon the question 'whether the trial is barred by sect. 1044, the indictment having been found more than three years after the commission of the alleged offence, or whether it is within the provisions of sect. 1046, as having been found within five years next after the commission of the alleged offence.'
It is enacted by sect. 1044 that 'no person shall be prosecuted for any offence, not capital, except as provided in sect. 1046, unless the indictment is found within three years next after such offence shall have been committed;' and by sect. 1046, that 'no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any crime arising under the revenue laws or the slave-trade laws of the United States, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after the committing of such crime.'
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. George Hoadly, for the defendants, cited United States v. Mayo, 1 Gall. 396; United States v. Norton, 91 U.S. 566.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER, after stating the case, 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. Hine Pontiac/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 715
United States v. Hine Pontiac
Messrs. Paul J. Sedgwick and L. W. Anderson, for respondents Hine Pontiac.
Mr. M. M. Wade, for respondent Modern Olds, Inc.
Messrs. Michael J. Salmon and Vincent F. Kilborn, for respondents Kilborn and others.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit are reversed. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hansen, (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glover, Baird v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue), 360 U.S. 446, 79 S.Ct. 1270.

## 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. Hine Pontiac

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 715
United States v. Hine Pontiac
See 80 S.Ct. 43.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Rice, Mr. Joseph F. Goetten and Carolyn R. Just, for petitioners.

## 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. Hitchcock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
205 U.S. 80
United States v. Hitchcock
Argued: January 30, 1907. --- Decided: March 4, 1907
Messrs. William H. Robeson, Samuel A. Putman, and William C. Shelley for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 80-82 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Campbell and Messrs. Fred. H. Barclay and Jesse C. Adkins for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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. Hite

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
204 U.S. 343
United States v. Hite
Argued: December 18, 1906. --- Decided: February 25, 1907
Assistant Attorney General Van Orsdel and Mr. John Q. Thompson for appellant.
Mr. Edward S. McCalmont for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad (279 U.S. 732)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 732
United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Argued: April 15, 1929. Decided June 3, 1929. ---
No. 129.
The Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. James S. Y. Ivins, of Washington, D. C., for Boston & M. R. Co.
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. Boston & Maine Railroad (380 U.S. 157)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 157
United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad (380 U.S. 157)
Argued: Jan. 21, 1965. --- Decided: March 8, 1965
Robert B. Hummel, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Edward O. Proctor, Sr., Boston, Mass., for appellees.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 476
United States v. Boston Buick Company
Argued: Jan. 8, 9, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. Charles W. Mulcahy, of Boston, Mass., and Robert N. Miller, of Washington, D. C., for respondent Boston Buick Co.
Mr. Burton E. Eames, of Boston, Mass., for respondent Iron Cap Copper Co.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad."
* 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. Boston & Maine Railroad (279 U.S. 732)
* United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad (380 U.S. 157)
# Uyghur joint status report: Exhibit 1

from http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/detention/gitmo/uighurs_aug2008_status_report.pdf
EXHIBIT 1 – STATUS OF UIGHUR PETITIONERS :
| Name | ISN | Civil>br>Action Number | Name As Listed in Habeas Petition | Capture Date | Date Approved For Release or Transfer |
| Abdul Sabour | 275 | 05-1509 | Abdusabur Doe | Dec. 2001 | Release – Nov. 2003 |
| Abdul Nasser | 278 | 05-1509 | Abdunasir Doe | Dec. 2001 | Transfer – Nov. 2005 |
| Khalid Ali | 280 | 05-1509 | Khalid Doe | Dec. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Sabir Osman | 282 | 05-1509 | Saabir Doe | Dec. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Jalal Jalaldin | 285 | 05-1509 | Jalaal Doe | Dec. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Abdul Semet | 295 | 05-1509 | Abdusamad Doe | Dec. 2001 | Release – June 2003 |
| Huzaifa Parhat | 320 | 05-1509 | Hudhaifa Doe | Dec. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Hammad Memet | 328 | 05-1509 | Hammad Doe | Dec. 2001 | Transfer – May 2008 |
| Edham Mamet | 102 | 05-1602 | Edham Mamet | Nov. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Arkin Mahmud | 103 | 05-1704 | Arkeen Doe | Nov. 2001 | Transfer – Jan. 2006 |
| Bahtiyar Mahnut | 277 | 05-1704 | Sadar Doe | Dec. 2001 | Transfer – Dec. 2005 |
| Ahmad Tourson | 201 | 05-2370 | Ahmad Doe | Nov. 2001 | Release – Dec. 2005 |
| Abdur Razakah | 219 | 05-2370 | Abdur Razakah | Dec. 2001 | Transfer – Dec. 2005 |
| Anwar Hassan | 250 | 05-2398 | Ali | Dec. 2001 | Release – June 2003 |
| Dawut Abdurehim | 289 | 05-2398 | Thabid | Dec. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman | 281 | 08-1310 | Abdurahman | Dec. 2001 | Release – Aug. 2003 |
| Adel Noori | 584 | 08-1310 | Adel LNU | May 2002 | Transfer – Oct. 2005 |
# Uyghur joint status report: Exhibit 2

from http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/detention/gitmo/uighurs_aug2008_status_report.pdf

# Exhibit 2

| Preferred Name | ISN | Case Caption | Next Friend | Date of Next Friend Authorization |
| Abdul Nasser | 278 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Abdul Sabour | 275 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Abdul Semet | 295 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Hammad Memet | 328 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Huzaifa Parhat | 329 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Jalal Jalaldin | 285 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Khalid Ali | 280 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Sabir Osman | 282 | Kiyemba v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1509 | Jamal Kiyemba | March 10, 2005 |
| Edham Mamet | 102 | Mamet v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1602 | Ibrahim Mamet | August 2, 2005 |
| Bahtiyar Mahnut | 277 | Kabir v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1704 | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Arkin Mahmud | 103 | Kabir v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1704 | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Abdur Razakah | 219 | Kabir v. Bush, No. 05-cv-1704 | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Ahmad Tourson | 201 | Razakah v. Bush, No. 05-cv-2370 | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Anwar Hassan | 250 | Thabid v. Bush, No. 05-cv-2398 | ]] | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Dawut Abdurehim | 289 | Thabid v. Bush, No. 05-cv-2398 | ]] | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman | 281 | Ghaffar v. Bush, No. 08-cv-1310 | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
| Adel Noori | 584 | Ghaffar v. Bush, No. 08-cv-1310 | Usama Hasan Abu Kabir | May 1, 2005 |
# Uyghur notice of status

* related portals: Guantanamo.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/files/Notice.pdf
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
| IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION . . . . . . | Misc. No. 08-CV-442 (TFH) Civil Action Nos. 05-1509 (RMU) 05-1602 (RMU) 05-1704 (RMU) 05-2370 (RMU) 05-2398 (RMU) 08-1310 (RMU) |

# NOTICE OF STATUS

By Minute Order dated August 21, 2008, respondents in the above-referenced matters were directed to notify the Court by September 30, 2008, of the status of petitioners. Previously, respondents informed the Court that they had determined that it would serve no useful purpose to engage in further litigation over enemy combatant status of petitioners Huzaifa Parhat (ISN 320), Abdul Semet (ISN 295), Jalal Jalaldin (ISN 285), Khalid Ali (ISN 280), and Sabir Osman (ISN 282). As respondents informed the Court, they decided to house those five petitioners as if they were no longer enemy combatants while efforts continue to resettle them in a foreign country. They would, after transfer to such special housing, remain there until they are resettled to another country, provided they comply with camp rules, regulations, and procedures. Respondents have now decided that the remaining twelve Uighur petitioners in these cases – Abdul Sabour (ISN 275), Abdul Nasser (ISN 278), Hammad Memet (ISN 328), Edham Mamet (ISN 102), Arkin Mahmud (ISN 103), Bahtiyar Mahnut (ISN 277), Ahmad Tourson (ISN 201), Abdur Razakah (ISN 219), Anwar Hassan (ISN 250), Dawut Abdurehim (ISN 289), Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman (ISN 281), Adel Noori (ISN 584) – will be put into the same category. That is, they will be treated as if they are no longer enemy combatants.
| Dated: September 30, 2008 | Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General JOHN C. O’QUINN Deputy Assistant Attorney General /S/ Andrew I. Warden JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134) VINCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191) JUDRY L. SUBAR (D.C. Bar No. 347518) TERRY M. HENRY ANDREW I. WARDEN (IN Bar No. 23840-49) Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 616-5084 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Attorneys for Respondents |
* ↑ As discussed with the Court at the hearing in this matter on August 21, 2008, this determination obviates the need to produce factual returns as to these petitioners. See Transcript of Hearing of August 21, 2008, at 51-52.
# Uveges v. Pennsylvania

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 437
Uveges v. Pennsylvania
Argued: Nov. 16, 17, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1948
Mr. Albert A. Fiok, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. William S. Rahauser, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Vaca v. Sipes

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 171
Vaca v. Sipes
Argued: Nov. 17, 1966. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1967
[Syllabus from pages 171-172 intentionally omitted]
David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Allan R. Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
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
# United States v. Poinier

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 160
United States v. Poinier
Asst. Atty. Gen. Cotton and John O. Chaney, for the United states.
C. C. Lancaster, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts as above, 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. Poland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 221
United States v. Poland
Argued: Nov. 19, 1919. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1920
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Nebeker, for the United States.
Messrs. Ira Bronson, of Seattle, Wash., and George H. Patrick, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 27
United States v. Portale
Argued: October 22, 1914. --- Decided: November 2, 1914
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 28 intentionally omitted]
No appearance for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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. Post

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
148 U.S. 124
United States v. Post
Atty. Gen. Miller and H. M. Foote, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United states.
Charles King, George A. King, and William B. King, for appellee.
Mr Justice BLATCHFORD 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. Plyler/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 15
United States v. Plyler
Argued: October 19, 1911. --- Decided: October 30, 1911
This is an indictment for forging vouchers required upon examination by the Civil Service Commission of the United States, certifying to the character, physical capacity, etc., of the applicant, the defendant, and for presenting the same to the commission. The district court held that the acts were not frauds against the United States, within the contemplation of Rev. Stat. § 5418, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3666, and discharged the defendant. The government excepted and brought the case to this court. It now must be regarded as established that 'it is not essential to charge or prove an actual financial or property loss to make a case under the statute.' The section covers this case. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 480, 54 L. ed. 569, 577, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249, 17 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1112; Curley v. United States, 64 C. C. A. 369, 130 Fed. 1; United States v. Bunting, 82 Fed. 883.
Judgment reversed.

## 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. Fisher (384 U.S. 212)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 212
United States v. Fisher (384 U.S. 212)
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice HARLAN would set the case for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits.

## 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. Fitch/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 631
United States v. Fitch
In this case, George W. Cullum, a resident of the state of New York, died in the city of New York, on February 28, 1892, leaving a last will and testament, which, on the 30th day of April, 1892, was duly admitted to probate. By this will, the testator bequeathed to the United States government the sum of $175,100, upon which, by order of the surrogate's court, there was assessed an inheritance tax of $8,755.
The case does not differ in principle from the one above decided (U.S. v. Perkins, 16 Sup. Ct. 1073), and the judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Mr. Justice HARLAN dissents.

## 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. Fisk/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
70 U.S. 445
United States v. Fisk
In the construction of statutes, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the clear intention of the legislature. In order to do this, courts are often compelled to construe 'or' as meaning 'and,' and again 'and' as meaning 'or.'
The purpose and intent of the legislature, in the amendment made to the ninth paragraph, was evidently not to change the correct definition given of the term 'broker,' and to make it mean that every man who sold his own stock was a broker, and liable to pay fifty dollars for a license. The obvious purpose of the amendment was to compel brokers to render an account of all sales made, whether for themselves or others, and to pay the duty on them. As is often the case in statutes, though the intention is clear, the words used to express it may be ill chosen.
The evil intended to be remedied by the amendment was transparent. If the amendment had been properly expressed, it should have been added as a proviso to the 99th section, which relates to the rates of duty to be paid on sales made in the stock-market by brokers or others licensed and doing business as such, and in the preceding case the court have so construed it.
Now, a banker pays a much higher license tax than a broker, and is permitted to 'prosecute or carry on' the business or profession of a broker without paying any further license; but if he prefers, he may not combine that business with his own. The 110th section prescribes the duties to be paid by a banker. It is not amended so as to require him to render an account of his purchases or sales of government stocks for himself. The case before us, therefore, presents no other question than the construction of the 99th section. It enacts that 'all brokers and bankers doing business as brokers shall be subject to the following duties,' &c.
Now, in order to subject a banker to the duties prescribed by this section, we are asked to interpolate the important word 'not,' and to construe it as including bankers who do not, as well as those who do transact 'business as brokers.' This would not be a construction of the statute, but an amendment thereof in direct contradiction of its language. This we do not feel at liberty to make.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 631
United States v. Fitch
Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.
B. F. Dos Passos, for defendant in error.
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. Fitzgerald

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
40 U.S. 407
United States v. Fitzgerald

## 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