OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Sullivan (274 U.S. 259)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 259
United States v. Sullivan
Argued: April 27, 1927. --- Decided: May 16, 1927
The Attorney General and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 260 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Frederick W. Aley, of Charleston, S.C.., pro hac vice, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 261 intentionally omitted]
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. Sullivan (332 U.S. 689)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 689
United States v. Sullivan (332 U.S. 689)
Argued: Dec. 9, 1947. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1948
Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Robert M. Arnold and J. Madden Hatcher, both of Columbus, Ga., for respondent.
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 States v. Sutherland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 363
United States v. Sutherland
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Cushing (Attorney General) for the United States, and by Mr. Rose for the appellees.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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
# Utah Junk Company v. Porter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 39
Utah Junk Company v. Porter
Argued: and Submitted Feb. 26, 1946. --- Decided: April 22, 1946
The 1944 amendment to Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, permitting a protest against any provision of a price schedule issued by the Price Administrator to be filed at any time after effective date of schedule, permits a right of protest which has expired through nonuser under the act of 1942. Emergency Price Control Act 1942, § 203, as amended by Stabilization Extension Act 1944, § 106, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923.
The 1944 amendment to Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 permitting a protest against any provision of a price schedule issued by Price Administrator to be filed at any time after effective date of schedule authorizes a protest without a time limit against both a price schedule that is contemporaneously active and a price schedule that has been superseded, but continues to govern validity of transaction occurring while the schedule was in force. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 203, as amended by Stabilization Extension Act 1944, § 106, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 923.
Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Richard H. Field, of Washington, D.C., 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
# Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 649
Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States
Calvin L. Rampton, for appellants.
Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kirkpatrick, Charles H. Weston, Robert W. Ginnane and Charles H. Johns, Jr., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
A. U. Miner, L. W. Hobbs, Bryan P. Leverich and Ernest P. Porter, for Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. and others, appellees.
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
# Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 649
Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States
The motions to affirm the granted and the judgment is 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
# Utah Fuel Company v. National Bituminous Coal Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 56
Utah Fuel Company v. National Bituminous Coal Commission
Argued: Jan. 3, 1939. --- Decided: Jan 30, 1939
Messrs. J. V. Norman and Robert E. Quirk, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Robert H. Jackson, Sol. Gen., for respondents.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Utah Highway Patrol v. American Atheists, Inc.

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Thomas
Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2011)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
UTAH HIGHWAY PATROL ASSOCIATION
v.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., ET AL.
LANCE DAVENPORT ET AL.
v.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., ET AL.
ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
| | The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows: |
| The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx) ||
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
# War and Peace (Tolstoy)/First Epilogue

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
# War and Peace (Tolstoy)/Contents

CONTENTS
BOOK ONE
BOOK TWO
BOOK THREE
BOOK FOUR
BOOK FIVE
BOOK SIX
BOOK SEVEN
BOOK EIGHT
BOOK NINE
BOOK TEN
BOOK ELEVEN
BOOK TWELVE
BOOK THIRTEEN
BOOK FOURTEEN
BOOK FIFTEEN
FIRST EPILOGUE
SECOND EPILOGUE
MAPS
# United States v. Drummond/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
38 U.S. 84
United States v. Drummond
This case, like that of the United States vs. Andrew Burgeon, is controlled by the decision of this Court in the case of the United States vs. Kingsley, 12 Peters, 476. The decree of the Superior Court of East Florida is therefore reversed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Superior Court for the district of East Florida, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this Court, that the petitioner having failed to fulfil the condition of the grant, that the said grant or concession is null and void; and that the said petitioner has no right or title to the land. Whereupon it is now here decreed and ordered by this Court, that the decree of the said Superior Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Superior Court, with directions to enter a decree 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. Dudley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 670
United States v. Dudley
This case originated in a petition filed in the circuit court of the Unites States for the district of Vermont for the review of a decision of the board of general appraisers to the effect that certain imports made by the petitioner into the port of Newport, of 'sawed boards and plank, planed on one side, tongued and grooved,' and entered as 'dressed lumber,' were not entitled to be admitted free of duty as 'sawed boards, plank, deals and other lumber, rough or dressed,' under the tariff act of August 28, 1894.
In June, 1895, Dudley imported from Canada eight car loads of boards and plank, planed on one side and grooved, or tongued and grooved. The collector imposed a duty of 25 per cent. upon this lumber, as a 'manufacture of wood,' under paragraph 181 of the tariff act of August 28, 1894, which reads as follows (28 Stat. 521): 'House or cabinet furniture, of wood, wholly or partly finished, manufactures of wood or of which wood is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.'
The importer protested, claiming that they should have been imported free of duty, as 'dressed lumber,' under paragraph 676.
The board of general appraisers sustained the action of the collector, and the importer filed this petition for review in the circuit court, which reversed the decision of the board. On appeal by the United States to the circuit court of appeals (24 C. C. A. 449, 79 Fed. 75), where the cause was heard by two judges, who were divided in opinion, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed.
Whereupon the United States applied for, and were granted, a writ of certiorari from this court.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Hoyt, for the United States.
C. A. Prouty, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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. Drum

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 370
United States v. Drum
Argued: Oct. 11 and 12, 1961. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1962
Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., for appellants in No. 23.
Roland Rice, Washington, D.C., for appellant in No. 24.
William L. Peterson, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., and Charles R. Iden, Akron, Ohio, for the appellees in both cases.
Mr. Justice Brennan 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. Drummond

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
38 U.S. 84
United States v. Drummond
APPEAL from the Superior Court of East Florida.
Mr. Grundy, Attorney General of the United States, submitted this case to the Court, alleging that the claimant relies on a concession made by Governor Coppinger for 16,000 acres of land, dated September 12th, 1816. The grant is upon a condition, namely, the erection of a water sawmill; 'and with the precise condition that until he executes said machinery, this grant will be considered as null and void, and without effect or value until that event takes place,' &c.
The mill was never erected. No sufficient reason is shown for its non-erection.
It is insisted that the erection of the mill is a condition precedent; and, consequently, that until the claimant shows a performance of that condition, or some reason for non-performance, which will satisfy the terms of the eighth article of the treaty ceding Florida to the United States, he has no title in law or equity.
This case is believed to be fully decided against the claimants by the decisions of this Court at its last term; in the cases of the United States vs. Mills's heirs, 12 Peters, 215; and United States vs. Kingsley, 12 Peters, 476.
Mr. Justice WAYNE 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. Dubilier Condenser Corporation

United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 178
United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation
Argued: Jan. 13-16, 1933. --- Decided: April 10, 1933
The Attorney General and Mr.Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 179-181 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James H. Hughes, Jr., of Wilmington, Del., for respondent.
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. Ducros

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
56 U.S. 38
United States v. Ducros
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Cushing, (Attorney-General,) for the United States.
The following were the points made on behalf of the appellants.
1. That the court below had no jurisdiction, and its decree is, therefore, void. The grant is a complete French grant, and not an incomplete title. See first section of the act of 1824, United States v. Reynes, 9 How. 144, 145; United States v. Power's Heirs, 11 How. 580.
2. That there was no sufficient evidence of the making of the grant produced in the case. The copy certified by the register is not evidence. See 3d section of the act of 1824, and the brief in the case of McCarthey's Heirs, No. 21, of the present term.
3. That even if the court had jurisdiction, and the evidence were sufficient, the grant is void, having been made by the French authorities after Louisiana had been ceded by France to Spain, in 1762. United States v. D'Auterive, 10 How. 610.
4. That the proceedings had before Carondelet, in 1793, operated no confirmation of the grant. They were merely proceedings in the settlement of the estate of Louis Toutant Beauregard, in which in no way was the extent of the plantation in issue. The front of the land was held at this time, under the grant to Le Sassier. Besides, it is to be remembered, that by the 13th article of O'Reilly's regulations, approved at Madrid, it was provided, that 'all grants shall be made in the name of the King, by the Governor-General of the province,' &c. No land could, therefore, be divested out of the King, except by a grant.
5. That from the great lapse of time before the grant was brought forward and insisted on, it must be held that the petitioners and their ancestors had abandoned all claim to the lands embraced within its limits.
6. That the grant is void under the fourteenth section of the act of 26th March, 1804. 1 Land Laws, 114; United States v. D'Auterive, 10 How. 624.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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. Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Rio Grande Dam Irrigation 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. Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company (174 U.S. 690)
* United States v. Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company (184 U.S. 416)
See also Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company v. United States.
# United States v. Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company (184 U.S. 416)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
184 U.S. 416
United States v. Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company
Argued: November 14, 15, 1901. --- Decided: March 3, 1902
Mr. Marsden C. Burch for appellant.
Mr. J. H. McGrowan for appellees.
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. Rindskopf/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 418
United States v. Rindskopf
The bill of exceptions in this case sets forth the charge of the court below in full, in disregard of our frequent condemnation of this practice. Only the parts to which the exceptions relate should have been given; all else is unnecessary, and produces only inconvenience. We repeat of this practice what we said of another practice not uncommon, and equally objectionable,-that of inserting the entire evidence in the record: 'If counsel will not heed our admonitions upon this subject, so frequently expressed by us, the judges of the courts below, to whom the bills are presented, should withhold their signatures until the bills are prepared in proper form, freed from all matter not essential to explain and point the exceptions.' Lincoln v. Laflin, 7 Wall. 132, 137.
The assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was only prima facie evidence of the amount due as taxes upon the spirits distilled between the dates mentioned. It established a prima facie case of liability against the distiller, and nothing more. If not impeached, it was sufficient to justify a recovery; but every material fact upon which his liability was asserted was open to contestation. He and his sureties were at liberty to show that no spirits, or a less quantity than that stated by the commissioner, were distilled within the period mentioned, and thus entirely, or in part, overthrow the assessment. They were also at liberty to show a payment of the tax assessed, in whole or in part, and thus discharge or reduce the distiller's liability. To the extent, however, in which the assessment was not impaired, it was evidence of the amount due. The court, therefore, erred in instructing the jury that the assessment was to be taken and considered in its entirety, and that the government was entitled to recover the exact amount assessed, or not any sum. In other respects the charge, as given above, correctly presents the law.
There may undoubtedly be cases where an assessment must stand as an entirety, or not at all; as where an erroneous rate has been adopted by the officer; or where it is impossible to separate from the property assessed the part which is exempt from the tax; or where its validity depends upon the jurisdiction of the commissioner. The present case does not fall within either of these classes. Here the question is as to the quantity of spirits produced on which taxes were not paid.
The decree in the equity suit was properly held not to be a bar to the prosecution of this action in the absence of proof that the assessment which it adjudged invalid covered the spirits upon which the assessment here was made. The instruction to the jury deprived it of any weight as evidence with them.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

## 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. Ringgold/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 150
United States v. Ringgold

## 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. Ripley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 18
United States v. Ripley

## 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
# Vasilisa the Beautiful

English-language translations of Василиса Прекрасная include:
* Vasilisa the Beauty, Nathan Haskell Dole [transl.]; Ivan Bilibin [illustr.] The Russian Fairy Book [aka The white duckling: and other stories]. New York: Crowell. 1907
* Wassilissa the Beautiful, translated by George Post Wheeler, illustrated by Ivan Bilibin, in Russian Wonder Tales, 1911
* Vasilísa the Fair, translated by Leonard Arthur Magnus in Russian Folk-Tales, 1916
# Vathek (1887)

Vathek (alternatively titled Vathek, an Arabian Tale or The History of the Caliph Vathek) is a Gothic novel written by William Beckford. It was composed in French in 1782, and then translated into English by Reverend Samuel Henley, in which form it was published in 1786. This text is based on the 1887 edition.
* Introduction
* Text
# Vathek

* Vathek, 3rd edition, annotated, 1816 (transcription project)
* Vathek, with introduction, 1887 IA
# Vashti

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Vashti."
* 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.
* "Vashti", a poem by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper
* "Vashti", a poem by Helen Hunt Jackson
# Vattier v. Hinde

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 252
Vattier v. Hinde

## 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