OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Five Gambling Devices

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 441
United States v. Five Gambling Devices
Argued: Oct. 12, 1953. --- Decided: Dec 7, 1953
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Acting Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Shelby Myrick, Savannah, Ga., for appellees Denmark and Braun.
No appearance for appellee in No. 14.
Mr. Justice JACKSON announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice MINTON join.

## 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
# Vermont v. New Hampshire (289 U.S. 593)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 593
Vermont v. New Hampshire
Argued: April 20, 21, 1933. --- Decided: May 29, 1933
[Syllabus from pages 593-595 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, Jr., of New York City, James P. Tuttle, of Manchester, N.H., and J. A. Matthews, of Newark, N.J., for the State of New Hampshire.
Messrs. Warren R. Austin, of Burlington, Vt., and John G. Sargent, of Ludlow, Vt., for the State of Vermont.
Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Vermont v. New Hampshire (290 U.S. 579)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 579
Vermont v. New Hampshire
Argued: Jan. 8, 1934. ---
Messrs. John G. Sargent, of Ludlow, Vt., and Warren R. Austin, of Burlington, Vt., for the State of Vermont.
Messrs. James P. Tuttle, of Manchester, N.H., and J. A. Matthews, of Newark, N.J., for the State of New Hampshire.
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
# Vermont v. New York (406 U.S. 186)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Supreme Court of the United States
406 U.S. 186
Vermont v. New York et al.
On Motion For Leave to File Bill of Complaint
No. 50, Orig. Argued: February 29, 1972 --- Decided: April 24, 1972
Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted.
Fred I. Parker, Deputy Attorney General of Vermont, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the briefs were James M. Jeffords, Attorney General, and John D. Hansen, Assistant Attorney General.
Philip Weinberg, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for defendant State of New York. With him on the briefs were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Paul S. Shemin and Irving Galt, Assistant Attorneys General. Taggart Whipple argued the cause for defendant International Paper Co. With him on the briefs were Richard E. Nolan and William H. Levit, Jr.
PER CURIAM.
# Vermont v. New York (406 U.S. 186)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
[p186] PER CURIAM.
The motion by Vermont for leave to file a bill of complaint invoking our original jurisdiction against New York and against International Paper Co., a New York corporation doing business in New York, is granted. New York and International Paper Co. are given until June 19, 1972, to answer the bill of complaint.
So ordered.
# Vermont v. New York

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Vermont v. New York."
* 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.
* Vermont v. New York (406 U.S. 186), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* Vermont v. New York (417 U.S. 270), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* Vermont v. New York (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter A/Part I

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability Part I—Tax on Individuals
* Section 1—Tax imposed
* Section 2—Definitions and special rules
* Section 3—Tax tables for individuals
* Section 4—Repealed
* Section 5—Cross references relating to tax on individuals
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1

See House of Representatives, Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes
* Subchapter A—Determination of tax liability
* (1/11) Subchapter B—Computation of taxable income
* Subchapter C—Corporate distributions and adjustments
* Subchapter D—Deferred compensation, etc.
* Subchapter E—Accounting periods and methods of accounting
* Subchapter F—Exempt organizations
* Subchapter G—Corporations used to avoid income tax on shareholders
* Subchapter H—Banking institutions
* Subchapter I—Natural resources
* Subchapter J—Estates, trusts, beneficiaries, and decedents
* Subchapter K—Partners and partnerships
* Subchapter L—Insurance companies
* Subchapter M—Regulated investment companies and real estate investment trusts
* (1/5) Subchapter N—Tax based on income from sources within or without the United States
* Subchapter O—Gain or loss on disposition of property
* Subchapter P—Capital gains and losses
* Subchapter Q—Readjustment of tax between years and special limitations
* Subchapter R—Election to determine corporate tax on certain international shipping activities using per ton rate
* Subchapter S—Tax treatment of S corporations and their shareholders
* Subchapter T—Cooperatives and their patrons
* Subchapter U—Designation and treatment of empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and rural development investment areas
* Subchapter V—Title 11 cases
* Subchapter W—District of Columbia Enterprise Zone
* Subchapter X—Renewal Communities
* Subchapter Y—New York Liberty Zone Benefits

## Note

* ↑ The original Table of Contents has the order of R and S reversed. but the text itself is in the correct order
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B/Part I

from the U.S. House of Representatives
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter B—Computation of Taxable Income Part I—Definition of gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, etc.
* Section 61—Gross income defined
* Section 62—Adjusted gross income defined
* Section 63—Taxable income defined
* Section 64—Ordinary income defined
* Section 65—Ordinary loss defined
* Section 66—Treatment of community income
* Section 67—2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions
* Section 68—Overall limitation on itemized deductions
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B/Part I/Section 61

See Cornell Law School. Last amended 1984 by PL98-369. This text is corrent to 2008-01-08 with no new amendments to 2009-06-24
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter B—Computation of Taxable Income Part I—Definition of gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, etc. Section 61—Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
    (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
    (2) Gross income derived from business;
    (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
    (4) Interest;
    (5) Rents;
    (6) Royalties;
    (7) Dividends;
    (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
    (9) Annuities;
    (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
    (11) Pensions;
    (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
    (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
    (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
    (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

## References

Cornell Law School
Internal Revenue Code Book
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter F/Part I

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter F—Exempt Organizations Part I—General Rule
* § 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
* § 502. Feeder organizations
* § 503. Requirements for exemption
* § 504. Status after organization ceases to qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(3) because of substantial lobbying or because of political activities
* § 505. Additional requirements for organizations described in paragraph (9), (17), or (20) of section 501(c)
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter A

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability
* Part I—Tax on Individuals
* Part II—Tax on Corporations
* Part III—Changes in Rates During a Taxable Year
* Part IV—Credits Against Tax
* Part V—Repealed
* Part VI—Alternative Minimum Tax
* Part VII—Environmental Tax
* Part VIII—Repealed
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter B—Computation of Taxable Income
* (2/8) Part I—Definition of gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, etc
* Part II—Items specifically included in gross income
* Part III—Items specifically excluded from gross income
* Part IV—Tax Exemption Requirements for State and Local Bonds
* Part V—Deductions for personal exemptions
* Part VI—Itemized deductions for individuals and corporations
* Part VII—Additional itemized deductions for individuals
* Part VIII—Special deductions for corporations
* Part IX—Items not deductible
* Part X—Terminal railroad corporations and their shareholders
* Part XI—Special rules relating to corporate preference items
# United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter F

See Cornell Law School
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A—Income Taxes Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter F—Exempt Organizations
* Part I—General Rule
* Part II—Private Foundations
* Part III—Taxation of business income of certain exempt organisations
* Part IV—Farmers co-operatives
* Part V—Shipowners protection and indemnity organisations
* Part VI—Political organisations
* Part VII—Higher education savings entities
# United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez/Dissent Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Kennedy Stevens
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Blackmun
* Wikipedia article
Justice BLACKMUN, dissenting.
I cannot accept the Court of Appeals' conclusion, echoed in some portions of Justice BRENNAN's dissent, that the Fourth Amendment governs every action by an American official that can be characterized as a search or seizure. American agents acting abroad generally do not purport to exercise sovereign authority over the foreign nationals with whom they come in contact. The relationship between these agents and foreign nationals is therefore fundamentally different from the relationship between United States officials and individuals residing within this country.
I am inclined to agree with Justice BRENNAN, however, that when a foreign national is held accountable for purported violations of United States criminal laws, he has effectively been treated as one of "the governed" and therefore is entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. Although the Government's exercise of power abroad does not ordinarily implicate the Fourth Amendment, the enforcement of domestic criminal law seems to me to be the paradigmatic exercise of sovereignty over those who are compelled to obey. In any event, as Justice STEVENS notes, ante, at 279, respondent was lawfully (though involuntarily) within this country at the time the search occurred. Under these circumstances I believe that respondent is entitled to invoke protections of the Fourth Amendment. I agree with the Government, however, that an American magistrate's lack of power to authorize a search abroad renders the Warrant Clause inapplicable to the search of a noncitizen's residence outside this country.
The Fourth Amendment nevertheless requires that the search be "reasonable." And when the purpose of a search is the procurement of evidence for a criminal prosecution, we have consistently held that the search, to be reasonable, must be based upon probable cause. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of probable cause, and I do not believe that a reliable determination could be made on the basis of the record before us. I therefore would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.

## 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. Vermont

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 351
United States v. Vermont
Argued: April 21, 1964. --- Decided: June 1, 1964
Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Charles E. Gibson, Jr., St. Johnsbury, Vt., for respondents.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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. Verdugo-Urquidez/Concurrence Stevens

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Kennedy Stevens
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Blackmun
* Wikipedia article
Justice STEVENS, concurring in the judgment.
In my opinion aliens who are lawfully present in the United States are among those "people" who are entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment. Respondent is surely such a person even though he was brought and held here against his will. I therefore cannot join the Court's sweeping opinion. I do agree, however, with the Government's submission that the search conducted by the United States agents with the approval and cooperation of the Mexican authorities was not "unreasonable" as that term is used in the first Clause of the Amendment. I do not believe the Warrant Clause has any application to searches of noncitizens' homes in foreign jurisdictions because American magistrates have no power to authorize such searches. I therefore concur in the Court's judgment.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 5

Chap. V.—An Act to annul “An act concerning wreckers and wrecked property,” passed by the governor and legislative council of the territory of Florida.
Act of the legislative council of Florida, of July 4th, 1823, declared null and void.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act of the governor and legislative council of the territory of Florida, entitled “An act concerning wreckers and wrecked property,” approved by the governor the fourth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, be, and the same is hereby, disapproved, and declared null and void.
Approved, February 1, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 6

Chap. VI.—An Act to authorize the legislature of the state of Ohio to sell the lands heretofore appropriated for the use of schools in that state.
Legislature of Ohio authorized to sell, &c., all or any part of the lands appropriated by Congress for the use of schools in said state, and invest the money in some productive fund. Proviso. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the legislature of the State of Ohio shall be, and is hereby, authorized to sell and convey, in fee simple, all, or any part, of the lands heretofore reserved and appropriated by Congress, for the use of schools within said state, and to invest the money arising from the sale thereof, in some productive fund, the proceeds of which shall be forever applied, under the direction of said legislature, for the use and support of schools within the several townships and districts of country, for which they were originally reserved and set apart, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever: Provided, Said land, or any part thereof, shall, in no case, be sold without the consent of the inhabitants of such township, or district, to be obtained in such manner as the legislature of said state shall by law direct: And provided, also, That, in the apportionment of the proceeds ​of said fund, each township and district aforesaid shall be entitled to such part thereof, and no more, as shall have accrued from the sum or sums of money arising from the sale of the school lands belonging to such township or district.
If the proceeds accruing to any township or district be insufficient for the support of schools therein, the legislature is to invest, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, if the proceeds accruing to any township or district, from said fund, shall be insufficient for the support of schools therein, it shall be lawful for said legislature to invest the same, as is herein before directed, until the whole proceeds of the fund belonging to such township or district shall be adequate to the permanent maintenance and support of schools within the same.
Approved, February 1, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 65

Chap. LXV.—An Act for the subscription of stock in the Dismal Swamp Canal Company.
Secretary of the Treasury to subscribe, for 600 shares of the capital stock of the Dismal Swamp Company.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to subscribe, in the name and for the use of the United States, for six hundred shares of the capital stock of the Dismal Swamp Canal, and to pay for the same, at such times, and in such proportions, as may be required by the existing rules and regulations of the said company.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall vote for the president and directors of said company, according to the said number of shares, and shall receive, upon said stock, the proportions of tolls and emoluments, which shall, from time to time, become due to the United States, on the shares of stock aforesaid.
This act to go into effect until the board of engineers shall examine said canal, and make a report, in writing, to the Secretary of War. 150,000 dollars appropriated to carry this act into effect.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act shall not go into effect until the United States’ board of engineers shall examine said canal, and make a report, in writing, to the Secretary of War, that, in their opinion, the plan on which the canal is to be executed, will answer, as far as the circumstances will permit, as part of the chain of canals contemplated along the Atlantic Coast, and that in their opinion, the sum hereby authorized to be subscribed for will be sufficient to finish the canal according to said plan: And it is further provided, That to carry this act into effect, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
The money subscribed on behalf of the United States to be actually expended wholly in the completion of the canal.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the money subscribed on behalf of the United States shall be actually expended in the completion of the canal, and not in the payment of any debt or debts now owing by the company; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, before the payment of any part of the money subscribed on behalf of the United States, to adopt such measures as shall insure the application of the same to the completion of the said canal, according to the plan proposed, and to no other purpose whatsoever.
Approved, May 18, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 59

Chap. LIX.—An Act to extend the time allowed for the redemption of land sold for direct taxes, in certain cases.
Time allowed for the redemption of lands sold for non-payment of taxes, under several acts extended. Act of Aug. 2, 1813, ch. 37. Act of Jan. 9, 1815, ch. 21. Act of March 5, 1816, ch. 24. Interest to be paid, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the time allowed for the redemption of lands which have been, or may be, sold for the non-payment of taxes, under the several acts passed on the second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen; the ninth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, and the fifth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, for laying and collecting a direct tax within the United States, so far as the same have been purchased for, or on behalf of the United States, be revived and be extended for the further term of two years, from and after the expiration of the present session of Congress: Provided, also, That, on such redemption, interest shall be paid at the rate of twenty per centum on the taxes aforesaid, and on the additions of twenty per centum chargeable thereon; and the right of redemption shall enure, as well to the heirs and assignees of the land so purchased on behalf of the United States, as to the original owners thereof.
Approved, May 16, 1826.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/19th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 47

Chap. XLVII.—An Act for the sale of a house and lot in New Orleans, and a store house at the Quarantine ground in Louisiana.
Secretary of the Treasury authorized to sell a house and lot, public property, in Royal street in the city of New Orleans.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to sell a house and lot, in Royal street, in the city of New Orleans, heretofore used for the district court of the United States, and a public store-house and lot of land at the Quarantine ground, in the state of Louisiana, whenever, in his opinion, the same shall be deemed expedient.
Approved, May 15, 1826.