OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Borden Company (308 U.S. 188)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
308 U.S. 188
United States v. Borden Company
Argued: and Submitted Nov. 15, 1939. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1939
[Syllabus from pages 188-190 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank Murphy, Atty. Gen., and Thurman Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Messrs. Loy N. McIntosh and Bernhardt Frank, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellees Sidney Wanzer & Sons, Inc., et al.
Mr. William C. Graves, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees Pure Milk Ass'n et al.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, of Washington, D.C., for appellees Robert G. Fitchie et al.
Messrs. Frederic Burnham, Donald F. McPherson, Cecil I. Crouse, Howard Neitzert, and Miles G. Seeley, all of Chicago, Ill. (Messrs. Sidley, McPherson, Austin & Burgess and Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, all of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellees Borden Co. et al.
Messrs. Louis E. Hart, Irving Herriott and L. Edward Hart, Jr., all of Chicago, Ill. (Messrs. Montgomery Hart, Pritchard & Herriott, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for Bowman Dairy Co. and others.
Messrs. Isidore Fried, Herbert B. Fried, and Bernard A. Stol, all of Chicago, Ill., for Capital Dairy Co. and another.
Mr. Daniel D. Carmell, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee Leslie G. Goudie.
Messrs. Charles S. Deneen, Roy Massena, and Donald N. Schaffer, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellees Hunding Dairy Co. et al.
Messrs. Ben H. Matthews and James P. Dillie, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee Leland Spencer.
Mr. Louis M. Mantynband, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees Western United Dairy Co. et al., upon and by their adoption of the brief filed on behalf of appellees Sidney Wanzer & Sons, Inc., et al.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Borden Company (370 U.S. 460)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 460
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. The BORDEN COMPANY et al.
Argued: April 24 and 25, 1962. --- Decided: June 25, 1962
Richard A. Solomon, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Stuart S. Ball, Chicago, Ill., for appellee, The Borden Co.
John Paul Stevens, Chicago, Ill., for appellee, Bowman Dairy Co.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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. Borden Company (370 U.S. 460)/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 460
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. The BORDEN COMPANY et al.
Argued: April 24 and 25, 1962. --- Decided: June 25, 1962
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
The Court treats this case as if the District Court had introduced novel and disruptive principles into the law of 'cost justification' under § 2(a) of the Clayton Act.
Although I consider the respective cost studies much more adequate than the Court credits them with being, it is sufficient to say that, as I read the opinion below, the District Court judged their over-all adequacy in accordance with accepted principles of law in this field. The lower court indeed carefully refrained from giving unqualified approval to either set of cost studies, in substance merely holding (1) that the studies had been conscientiously prepared and prima facie appeared to justify generally the price discriminations arising from the appellees' discount practices (and more particularly to justify those specifically relied on by the Government as 'trial' samples); and (2) that, in light of the long-drawn-out history of this litigation, the appropriate disposition was to deny injunctive relief, allowing the Government to bring to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission any other specific price differentials which it believed not justifiable under these or other cost studies.
This seems to me an eminently sensible and fair disposition of this stale litigation which has now been in the courts for nearly 12 years. I can see no point whatever in this Court sending the case back to the District Court for what will presumably amount to a third trial, especially when it is apparent that drastic changes in the situation complained of by the Government have taken place since 1955.
Had what the record now reveals been fully appreciated at the time the Jurisdictional Statement was considered a summary disposition of the case would have been called for.
I would affirm.

## 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. Borden Company (347 U.S. 514)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 514
United States v. Borden Company (347 U.S. 514)
Argued: April 27, 1954. --- Decided: May 17, 1954
Mr.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Barnes, for appellant.
Mr. Stuart S. Ball, Chicago, Ill., for appellees Borden Co. et al.
Mr. Leo F. Tierney, Chicago, Ill., for appellee Beloit Dairy Co.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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. Child Company/Dissent Clifford

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Clifford
United States Supreme Court
79 U.S. 232
United States v. Child Company
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, with whom concurred the CHIEF JUSTICE, dissenting:
The Court of Claims having found that the claim in this case was never submitted to the commission appointed by the direction of the President to examine such claims, I am unable to concur in the conclusion of the court that the case is controlled by the decision of the court in the case of United States v. Adams, in 7th Wallace, and for the reason that the claim was never so presented.
DAVIS and FIELD, JJ., absent.

## 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. Choctaw Nation, Wichita

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
179 U.S. 494
United States v. Choctaw Nation, Wichita
Argued: March 7, 8, 9, 1900. --- Decided: December 10, 1900
[Syllabus from 495 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George T. Barnes, J. M. Wilson, and Robert L. Owen for Choctaw nation.

## 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. Childs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 304
United States v. Childs
Argued: Oct. 14, 1924. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1924
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Sewall Key, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Moses Cohen, of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 305 intentionally omitted]
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. Canda

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 674
United States v. Canda
The Attorney General and the Solicitor General, for the United States.
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. Candelaria

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 432
United States v. Candelaria
Argued: Nov. 18, 19, 1925. --- Decided: June 1, 1926
[Syllabus from pages 432-434 intentionally omitted]
Mr. H. L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Mr. Frank W. Clancy, of Santa Fe , N. M., for Candelaria and others.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 435-436 intentionally omitted]
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. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 76
United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Company
Argued: May 19, 1960. --- Decided: June 27, 1960
Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Erwin N. Griswold, for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Company/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 76
United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Company
Argued: May 19, 1960. --- Decided: June 27, 1960
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in the result.
In joining the judgment in this case I shall refer only to one matter which, among the voluminous data presented by the parties, is for me by far the most telling in favor of the Government's position.
Treasury Regulation 77, promulgated in 1933 under the Revenue Act of 1932 (47 Stat. 169), defined the basic term 'gross income from the property' contained in § 114(b)(4) of the 1932 Act and carried forward in its successors. Art. 221(g). It concededly supports, by its express terms (see 364 U.S. at page 83, 80 S.Ct. at page 1585), the position of the Government in the present case. In my opinion the regulation was undoubtedly a valid exercise of the Commissioner's power to construe a generally worded statute. See Preliminary Report on Depletion, Staff Reports to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (1930), p. 68 (Shepherd Report); Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Co., 308 U.S. 90, 102-103, 60 S.Ct. 18, 25, 84 L.Ed. 101. The Revenue Act of 1943 (58 Stat. 21, 45), which added to the 1939 Code the provisions governing this case, represented only a limited departure from the 1933 Regulation, or from the administrative action taken under it, principally in the area of extractive processes applied to minerals not customarily sold in the form of a crude product, and did not basically affect the meaning of the term 'gross income from the property.' See, e.g., Revenue Act of 1943, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 3687, pp. 527-529; S.Rep. No. 627, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 23-24; Revenue Revision of 1942, Hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1202; compare id., at 1199; Silver, Hearings before the Senate Special Committee on the Investigation of Silver, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pursuant to S.Res. 187 (74th Cong.), pp. 761-764. Respondent's efforts to impugn the force of that Regulation, see Shepherd Report, supra, at 70, 71; Revenue Revisions, 1947-1948, Hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3283; Mineral Treatment Processes for Percentage Depletion Purposes, Hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 258, 264, seem to me quite unpersuasive.
This history, in my view, provides an authoritative and controlling gloss upon the term 'commercially marketable mineral product or products' in the statutory definition of 'mining,' which in turn constitutes the 'property' with which the statute deals. See Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Co., supra. It results, on this record, in limiting respondent's basis for depletion to its constructive income from raw fire clay and shale.

## 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. Canda/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 674
United States v. Canda
This case comes here on a certificate of division as to questions arising on a motion to quash an information, and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of U.S. v. Rosenburgh. 7 Wall. 580, and U.S. v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251. It is consequently 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
# United States v. Capital Transit Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 357
United States v. Capital Transit Company
Argued: April 3, 1945. --- Decided: May 28, 1945
See 325 U.S. 896, 65 S.Ct. 1562.
Mr. Paul A. Freund, of Washington, D.C., for appellant the United states.
Mr. Daniel W. Knowlton, of Washington, D.C., for appellant Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Robert E. Quirk, of Washington, D.C., for appellees Alexandria, Barcroft & Washington Transit Co. et al.
Mr. Henry E. Ketner, of Richmond, Va., for appellee State Corporation Commission of State of Virginia.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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 Nations Security Council Resolution 42

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 263rd meeting, by 8 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Argentina, Syria, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), on 5 March 1948
The Security Council,
Having received General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 on Palestine, and having received from the United Nations Palestine Commission its first monthly report ([1]) and its first special report ([2]) on the problem of security in Palestine,
1. Resolves to call on the permanent members of the Council to consult and to inform the Security Council regarding the situation with respect to Palestine and to make, as the result of such consultations, recommendations to it regarding the guidance and instructions which the Council might usefully give to the Palestine Commission with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly. The Security Council requests the permanent members to report to it on the results of their consultations within ten days;
2. Appeals to all Governments and peoples, particularly in and around Palestine, to take all possible action to prevent or reduce such disorders as are now occurring in Palestine.
[1] Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, Special Supplement No. 2, document S/663. [2] Ibid., document S/676.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 421

Adopted unanimously at the 2052nd meeting, 9 December 1977.
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 418 (1977) of 4 November 1977, in which it determined, having regard to the policies and acts of the South African Government, that the acquisition by South Africa of arms and related matériel constituted a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security and established a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa,
Mindful of the need to have appropriate machinery in order to examine the progress of implementation of the measures envisaged in resolution 418 (1977),
Noting that it requested the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the progress of the implementation of resolution 418 (1977),
    1. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council, consisting of all the members of the Council, to undertake the following tasks and to report on its work to the Council with its observation and recommendations:
       (a) To examine the report on the progress of the implementation of resolution 418 (1977) which will be submitted by the Secretary-General;
       (b) To study ways and means by which the mandatory arms embargo could be made more effective against South Africa and to make recommendations to the Council;
       (c) To seek from all States further information regarding the action taken by them concerning the effective implementation of the provisions laid down in resolution 418 (1977);
    2. Calls upon all States to cooperate fully with the Committee in regard to the fulfillment of its tasks concerning the effective implementation of the provisions of resolution 418 (1977) and to supply such information as may be sought by the Committee in pursuance of the present resolution;
    3. Requests the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance to the Committee and to make the necessary arrangements in the Secretariat for that purpose, including the provision of appropriate staff for the servicing of the Committee.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 416

Adopted at the 2035th meeting by 13 votes to none, 21 October 1977.
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 338 (1973) of 22 October, 340 (1973) of 25 October and 341 (1973) of 27 October 1973, 346 (1974) of 8 April and 362 (1974) of 23 October 1974, 368 (1975) of 17 April, 371 (1975) of 24 July and 378 (1975) of 23 October 1975, and 396 (1976) of 22 October 1976,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force,
Having noted the developments in the situation in the Middle East,
Recalling the Secretary-General's view that any relaxation of the search for a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the Middle East problem could be dangerous and his hope that urgent efforts would be undertaken by all concerned to tackle the Middle East problem in all its aspects, with a view both to maintaining quiet in the region and to arriving at the comprehensive settlement called for by the Security Council in its resolution 338 (1973),
Noting that the Secretary-General recommends the extension of the mandate of the Force for one year,
    1. Decides:
       (a) To call upon all the parties concerned to immediately implement Security Council resolution 338 (1973);
       (b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for a period of one year, that is, until 24 October 1978;
       (c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and on the steps taken to implement resolution 338 (1973);
    2. Expresses its confidence that the Force will be maintained with maximum efficiency and economy.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 420

Adopted at the 2051st meeting by 12 votes to none, 30 November 1977.
The Security Council,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force,
Having noted the efforts made to establish a durable and just peace in the Middle East area and the urgent need to continue and intensify such efforts,
Expressing concern over the prevailing state of tension in the area,
Decides:
    (a) To call upon the parties concerned to implement immediately Security Council resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;
    (b) To renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for another period of six months, that is, until 31 May 1978;
    (c) To request the Secretary-General to submit at the end of this period a report on the developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse