OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 241

Chap. CCXLI.—An Act to authorize the disposition of the fund arising from the sale of a quarter section of land, reserved for the use of schools, in Florida.
Commissioners authorized to vest money arising from sale of certain land in some productive fund. March 2, 1829, ch. 39. Proceeds to be applied to common schools.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the commissioners elected by the qualified voters in township five, range eleven, north and west, in the county of Jackson, in the territory of Florida, in obedience to an act of Congress, entitled “An act to authorize the establishment of a town on land reserved for the use of schools, &c.,” approved the second of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, be, and they are hereby, authorized to vest the money arising from the sale in said act authorized, in some productive fund under the authority of the governor and legislative council of the territory, the proceeds of which shall for ever be applied to common schools in said township.
Commissioners authorized to sell remainder of lots, &c. Proviso.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said commissioners be, and they are hereby authorized to make sale of the remainder of said lots to be applied to the objects aforesaid; and all provisions of the act aforesaid, inconsistent with this act, be, and the same are hereby repealed: Provided, That the governor and legislative council of said territory authorize such sale, with the assent of the majority of the inhabitants of said township.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 25

Chap. XXV.—An Act to provide for the payment of arrearages in the naval service, chargeable to the enumerated contingent prior to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two.
$80,000 appropriated.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of eighty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be applied, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, in the payment of arrearages connected with the naval service, and chargeable to the contingent enumerated prior to January the first, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and which have been or may be approved and passed by the proper accounting officers.
Approved, February 24, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 240

Chap. CCXL.—An Act to authorize the sale of certain public lands in the state of Ohio.
Certain public lands to be attached to the land districts in which they are respectively situate, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the lands heretofore reserved for certain Indian tribes in the state of Ohio, and which were ceded to the United States by treaties ratified on the twenty-fourth day of March, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, and the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, be, and the same are hereby attached to, and made to form part of, the land districts in which they are respectively situated, and liable to be sold as other public lands in the state of Ohio.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 242

Chap. CCXLII.—An Act giving the assent of the United States to an act of the general assembly of Maryland, passed at their December session, in one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, entitled “An act further to amend the act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company.”
Act of May 23, 1828, ch. 85. Assent of the United States given to act of Maryland. Proviso.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the assent of the United States be, and the same is hereby, given to an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, entitled “An act further to amend the act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,” which passed the general assembly of Maryland at December session, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one: Provided, That nothing therein contained shall be construed to impair any right possessed by the said company anterior to the passage of said act, nor to authorize any individual to obstruct the free access of all persons to the said canal along the berm bank, or other lands condemned for the construction and use thereof, nor to prevent the engineers, superintendents, or officers of the said company, from passing up and down the said canal without obstruction along the grounds condemned therefor, in order to inspect the condition of the said canal, or to make, at any time, suitable repairs thereof.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 243

Chap. CCXLIII.—An Act making appropriation towards the expense of laying out and opening a military road, from fort Howard, at Green bay, to fort Crawford, on the Mississippi.
Appropriation.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of five thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, towards the expense of laying out and opening a military road from fort Howard, at Green bay, in the territory of Michigan, to fort Crawford, on the Mississippi, by the way of fort Winnebago.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/22nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 247

Chap. CCXLVII.—An Act to authorize the sale of lands reserved from sale at fort Jackson, in the state of Alabama.
Sale of land authorized.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 is hereby authorized to offer for sale, the lands heretofore reserved from sale at fort Jackson, in the state of Alabama.
Settlers on said lands, who, prior to 1830, cultivated, &c. allowed to enter, &c. Act of May 29, 1830, ch. 208.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That every settler on said lands, who, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty, cultivated any part thereof, and is now in possession of the same, shall be allowed to enter at the proper land office, one quarter section, according to the provisions of the first section of an act to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands, approved May twenty-ninth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
# United States v. One Package of Merchandise/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 98
United States v. One Package of Merchandise
The libel of information was filed, in this case, in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one package of goods; the entry, as charged, having been made upon an invoice in which the goods were invoiced under their actual cost value at the place of exporation, with a design to defraud the duties. After the evidence was heard, the jury, under the instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The court afterwards arrested the judgment for the plaintiffs, and directed a judgment for the claimants, on the ground that the 66th section of the act of 1799 had been repealed; which judgment was affirmed, on error, by the circuit court.
For the reason given in the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment below must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this 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. Oregon (295 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 1
United States v. Oregon
Argued: March 12, 1935. --- Decided: April 1, 1935
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. Crawford Biggs, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., Chas. M. Blackmar, of Kansas City, Mo., and R. S.C.ollins, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Messrs. L. A. Liljeqvist, of Coquille, Or., and I. H. Van Winkle, of Salem, Or., for defendant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 3-5 intentionally omitted]
-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
# United States v. One Package of Merchandise

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 98
United States v. One Package of Merchandise
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.
It was similar, in its circumstances, to the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, and was argued by Mr. Cushing, attorney-general, at the same time.
Mr. Justice NELSON 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. Oppenheimer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85; (1916), was a landmark Supreme Court decision applying the common law concept of res judicata (literally: the thing is decided) to criminal law cases. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 85
United States v. Oppenheimer
Argued: October 19 and 20, 1916. --- Decided: December 4, 1916
Assistant Attorney General Warren and Mr. A. J. Clopton for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Benjamin Slade, L. Laflin Kellogg, and Abram J. Rose 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. One Ford Coupe Automobile

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 321
United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile
Argued: Oct. 19, 20, 1926. --- Decided: Nov 22, 1926
[Syllabus from pages 321-323 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Duane R. Dills, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. One Hundred and Twelve Casks of Sugar Nathan Goodale

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 277
United States v. One Hundred and Twelve Casks of Sugar Nathan Goodale
APPEAL from the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.
This case was presented to the court on printed statements and arguments, by Mr Butler, attorney-general, for the appellants.
Mr Justice THOMPSON 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. Oregon

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Oregon."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Oregon (295 U.S. 1)
* United States v. Oregon (366 U.S. 643)
# United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company."
* 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. Union Central Life Insurance Company (365 U.S. 858)
* United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (368 U.S. 291)
# United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (365 U.S. 858)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 858
United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan granted and case transferred to the summary calendar.

## 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. Union Central Life Insurance Company (365 U.S. 858)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 858
United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, and I. Henry Kutz and Fred E. Youngman, for the United States.
H. William Butler, for respondent.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company (368 U.S. 291)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 291
United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Company
Argued: Nov. 7, 1961. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1961
I. Henry Kutz, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
H. William Butler, Detroit, Mich., for the respondent.
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice BLACK, announced by Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER.

## 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. Union Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 605
United States v. Union Manufacturing Company
Argued: February 28, 1916. --- Decided: April 3, 1916
Assistant to the Attorney General Todd for plaintiff in error.
Mr. W. G. Brantley for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 38
United States v. Ulrici
[Syllabus from page 38 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 38-39 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
No brief for defendants in error.
WOODS, J.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 17
United States v. Dow
Argued: March 5, 1958. --- Decided: June 9, 1958
Mr. Perry W. Morton, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. L. Keith Simmer, Houston, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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. Driscoll

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 421
United States v. Driscoll
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The court below rendered judgment pro forma for the claimant.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Joseph Casey and Mr. Thomas J. Durant, contra.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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. Dotterweich

United States Supreme Court
320 U.S. 277
United States v. Dotterweich
Argued: Oct. 12, 1943. --- Decided: Nov 22, 1943
See 320 U.S. 815, 64 S.Ct. 367.
Mr. Charles Fahy, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Samuel M. Fleischman, of Buffalo, N.Y., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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. Drew

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
131 U.S. 21
United States v. Drew
Sol. Gen. Jenks and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for plaintiff in error.
J. L. Bradford and A. H. Leonard, for defendant in error.
BRADLEY, J.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
131 U.S. 21
United States v. Drew
This is a suit in equity, brought against the United States to establish the claim of the plaintiff to have land-warrants or certificates of location for 1,015 acres of land made out and delivered to him by way of indemnity and satisfaction for a certain concession or grant of land made by the Spanish governor to one Francisco Adante, in 1788; the land itself having been surveyed as public land by the United States, and disposed of to purchasers. The claim is made under the provisions of the act of June 2, 1858, entitled 'An act to provide for the location of certain confirmed private land claims of the state of Missouri, and for other purposes,' (11 St. 294;) the claim in question having been confirmed by act of congress passed February 28, 1823, (3 St. 727.) The suit is subject to the same objections which exist in relation to the suits of Carrie Jones and others, ante, 669, (just disposed of,) and the same decree must be made as in thos cases. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the original petition or bill.

## 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. Isthmian Steamship Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 314
United States v. Isthmian Steamship Company
Argued: Feb. 25, 1959. --- Decided: April 27, 1959
Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Clement C. Rinehart, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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. J. B. Montgomery, Inc.

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 389
United States v. J. B. Montgomery, Inc.
Argued: Jan. 8, 1964. --- Decided: March 23, 1964
See 377 U.S. 925, 84 S.Ct. 1218.
Frank I. Goodman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellants, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Charles W. Singer, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
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. J. S. Stearns Lumber Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 436
United States v. J. S. Stearns Lumber Company
Argued: Dec. 18, 1917. --- Decided: Jan 7, 1918
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful, for the United States.
Messrs. Arthur Dyrenforth and W. W. Gurley, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Mr. Justice DAY 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. Summerlin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
310 U.S. 414
United States v. Summerlin
Argued: April 29, 1940. --- Decided: May 27, 1940
Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Mr. Frederick Bernays Wiener, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Asbury Summerlin, of Winter Haven, Fla., for respondent.
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. Supplee-Biddle Hardware Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 189
United States v. Supplee-Biddle Hardware Company
Argued: April 9, 1924. --- Decided: May 26, 1924
The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 190 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank Davis, Jr., of Washington, D. C., and Frederic L. Clark, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 191 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