OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Buzzo/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 125
United States v. Buzzo
As in this case the intent is the essence of the crime, and is not found, no judgment can be entered on the verdict, whether the facts disclosed therein required a stamp to be affixed to the draft or not. To decide the question proposed, therefore, would avail nothing. An imperfect verdict, or one on which no judgment can be rendered, must be set aside, and a venire de novo awarded. The case must therefore be dismissed.
It is proper to observe that in the case of United States v. Isham, recently decided by this court, we held that no stamp is required on drafts of the kind above described, when not exceeding ten dollars in amount.
CASE DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ 1 Bishop's Criminal Procedure, § 280, or 2d edition, 523; People v. Lehman, 2 Barbour, 218, 219.
* ↑ Bacon's Abridgment, title 'Verdict' (M.); Tidd's Practice, 992, 9th ed.; Holland v. Fisher, Orlando Bridgman, 187, 188.
* ↑ 17 Wallace, 496. [The case had not been decided when the present one was argued.-REP.]
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. Calamaro

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
354 U.S. 351
United States v. Calamaro
Argued: March 4, 1957. --- Decided: June 17, 1957
Mr. Leonard B. Sand, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raymond ,. Bradley, Philadelphia, Pa., for the 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. Butterworth-Judson Corporation (269 U.S. 504)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 504
United States v. Butterworth-Judson Corporation (269 U.S. 504)
Argued: Nov. 23, 1925. --- Decided: Jan 11, 1926
Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for the
United states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 504-509 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. H. G. Pickering, Eldon Bisbee, and Bertram F. Shipman, all of New York City, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 509-511 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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. Cadarr

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
197 U.S. 475
United States v. Cadarr
Argued: February 28, March 1, 1905. --- Decided: April 3, 1905
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds and Mr. William R. Harr for petitioner.
Mr. H. Prescott Gatley for respondents.
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. Butterworth-Judson Corporation (267 U.S. 387)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 387
United States v. Butterworth-Judson Corporation
Argued: Dec. 9 and 10, 1924. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., and The Attorney General, for appellants.
Mr. William C. Breed, of New York City, for appellee National Newark & Essex Banking Co.
Mr. David Paine, of New York City, for appellees Chase National Bank and others.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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. Tyler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 244
United States v. Tyler
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Richard W. Tyler and Mr. Robert B. Warden for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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. Twin City Power Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 222
United States v. Twin City Power Company
Argued: Oct. 18, 1955. --- Decided: Jan 23, 1956
See 350 U.S. 1009, 76 S.Ct. 648.
Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. David W. Robinson, for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 358
United States v. Twenty-Five Packages of Panama Hats
Argued: October 30, 1913. --- Decided: December 1, 1913
Assistant Attorney General Adkins for petitioner.
Mr. Albert H. Washburn for respondent.
Mr. Justice Lamar 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. General Motors Corporation (384 U.S. 127)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 127
United States v. General Motors Corporation (384 U.S. 127)
Argued: Dec. 9, 1965. --- Decided: April 28, 1966
Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Homer I. Mitchell and Victor R. Hansen, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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. General Motors Corporation

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. General Motors Corporation."
* 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. General Motors Corporation (323 U.S. 373)
* United States v. General Motors Corporation (384 U.S. 127)
See also General Motors Corporation v. United States.
# United States v. Gear

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 120
United States v. Gear

## 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. General Motors Corporation (384 U.S. 127)/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 127
United States v. General Motors Corporation (384 U.S. 127)
Argued: Dec. 9, 1965. --- Decided: April 28, 1966
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in the result.
Although I consider that United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 503, decided in 1960, represents basically unsound antitrust doctrine, see my dissenting opinion, 362 U.S., at 49, 80 S.Ct., at 514, I see no escape from the conclusion that it controls this case. Parke Davis held that a manufacturer cannot maintain resale prices by refusing to sell to those who do not follow his suggested prices if the refusal is attended by concerted action with his customers, even though he may unilaterally so conduct himself. See United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992. Although Parke Davis related to alleged price-fixing, I have been unable to discern any tenable reason for differentiating it from a case involving, as here, alleged boycotting. The conclusion that Parke Davis governs the present case is therefore unavoidable, given the undisputed evidence that General Motors acted in concert with its dealers in enforcing the location clause. In my opinion, however, General Motors is not precluded from enforcing the location clause by unilateral action, and I find nothing in the Court's opinion to the contrary.
On this basis I concur in the judgment 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. General Electric Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States v. General Electric Co. is a 1926 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding (per Chief Justice Taft) that a patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 476
United States v. General Electric Company
Argued: Oct. 13, 1926. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1926
The Attorney General and Mr. James A. Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 477 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Charles Neave, of New York City, for General Electric Co.
Mr. Fred H. Wood, of New York City, for Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. General Motors Corporation (323 U.S. 373)

United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 373
United States v. General Motors Corporation
Argued: Nov. 16, 17, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 8, 1945
Mr. Vernon L. Wilkinson, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John Thomas Smith, of New York City, 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. Reynolds

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Reynolds."
* 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. Reynolds (235 U.S. 133)
* United States v. Reynolds (250 U.S. 104)
* United States v. Reynolds (345 U.S. 1)
* United States v. Reynolds (397 U.S. 14)
See also Reynolds v. United States.
# United States v. Reynolds (250 U.S. 104)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
250 U.S. 104
United States v. Reynolds (250 U.S. 104)
Argued: March 4 and 5, 1919. --- Decided: May 19, 1919
Mr.Solicitor General Alex. C. King, of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Mr. Mark Goode, of Shawnee, Okl., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 105-106 intentionally omitted]
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. Reynes

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
50 U.S. 127
United States v. Reynes

## 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. Reynolds (235 U.S. 133)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 133
United States v. Reynolds
Argued: October 23, 1914. --- Decided: November 30, 1914
Solicitor General Davis for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 134 intentionally omitted]
Mr. William L. Martin and Mr. Robert C. Brickell, Attorney General of Alabama, for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 135-138 intentionally omitted]
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. Reynolds (345 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the formal recognition of State Secrets Privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 1
United States v. Reynolds
Argued: Oct. 21, 1952. --- Decided: March 9, 1953
Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles J. Biddle, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON 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 Reports/Volume 374

* 374 U.S. 1 (1963) Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
* 374 U.S. 16 (1963) Fitzgerald v. United States
* 374 U.S. 23 (1963) Ker v. California
* 374 U.S. 65 (1963) Braunstein v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
* 374 U.S. 74 (1963) Division 1287, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Missouri
* 374 U.S. 84 (1963) United States v. Pioneer American Insurance Company
* 374 U.S. 97 (1963) Randolph v. Virginia
* 374 U.S. 101 (1963) Marchese v. United States
* 374 U.S. 102 (1963) Keller v. Wisconsin ex rel. State Bar of Wisconsin
* 374 U.S. 103 (1963) Price v. Moss
* 374 U.S. 104 (1963) Laino v. New York
* 374 U.S. 105 (1963) Huggins v. Raines
* 374 U.S. 106 (1963) Bentley v. Alaska
* 374 U.S. 107 (1963) Bentley v. Alaska
* 374 U.S. 108 (1963) Peterson v. Wainwright
* 374 U.S. 109 (1963) Yellin v. United States
* 374 U.S. 150 (1963) United States v. Muniz
* 374 U.S. 167 (1963) Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc.
* 374 U.S. 174 (1963) United States v. Singer Manufacturing Company
* 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Abington School District v. Schempp
* 374 U.S. 321 (1963) United States v. Philadelphia National Bank
* 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Sherbert v. Verner
* 374 U.S. 424 (1963) Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
* 374 U.S. 449 (1963) Rosenberg v. Fleuti
* 374 U.S. 469 (1963) Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy
* 374 U.S. 495 (1963) Davis v. Soja
* 374 U.S. 496 (1963) Cardinal Sporting Goods Company v. Eagleton
* 374 U.S. 497 (1963) Regalado v. California
* 374 U.S. 498 (1963) Dearhart v. Virginia
* 374 U.S. 500 (1963) Daniels v. Virginia
* 374 U.S. 502 (1963) Scott v. United States
* 374 U.S. 503 (1963) Bone v. United States
* 374 U.S. 504 (1963) Dearhart v. Virginia
* 374 U.S. 505 (1963) Herb v. Wainwright
* 374 U.S. 506 (1963) Holmes v. Wainwright
* 374 U.S. 507 (1963) Palmer v. Wainwright
* 374 U.S. 508 (1963) Baxley v. Wainwright
# United States Reports/Volume 366

* 366 U.S. 1 (1961) Stewart v. United States
* 366 U.S. 28 (1961) Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc.
* 366 U.S. 36 (1960) Konigsberg v. State Bar of California
* 366 U.S. 82 (1961) In re Anastaplo
* 366 U.S. 117 (1961) Cohen v. Hurley
* 366 U.S. 161 (1961) Smith v. Butler
* 366 U.S. 167 (1961) Lush v. Commissioner of Education of New York
* 366 U.S. 168 (1961) Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Carpentier
* 366 U.S. 169 (1961) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes v. United States
* 366 U.S. 187 (1961) Kolovrat v. Oregon
* 366 U.S. 199 (1961) Alaska v. Arctic Maid
* 366 U.S. 207 (1961) Atchley v. California
* 366 U.S. 208 (1961) Anderson v. Alabama
* 366 U.S. 209 (1961) Chaifetz v. United States
* 366 U.S. 210 (1961) Smith v. Smith
* 366 U.S. 211 (1961) Binks Manufacturing Company v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corporation
* 366 U.S. 213 (1961) James v. United States
* 366 U.S. 259 (1961) Slagle v. Ohio
* 366 U.S. 271 (1961) Bond v. Green
* 366 U.S. 272 (1961) Porter Company v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc.
* 366 U.S. 276 (1961) Eli Lilly and Company v. Sav-on-Drugs, Inc.
* 366 U.S. 293 (1961) Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
* 366 U.S. 299 (1961) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lester
* 366 U.S. 308 (1961) Montana v. Kennedy
* 366 U.S. 316 (1961) United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
* 366 U.S. 380 (1961) United States v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
* 366 U.S. 393 (1961) Bell v. United States
* 366 U.S. 417 (1961) Baldonado v. California
* 366 U.S. 418 (1961) Bushnell v. Ellis
* 366 U.S. 419 (1961) Herrin Transportation Company v. United States
* 366 U.S. 420 (1961) McGowan v. Maryland
* 366 U.S. 582 (1961) Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley
* 366 U.S. 599 (1961) Braunfeld v. Brown
* 366 U.S. 617 (1961) Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc.
* 366 U.S. 643 (1961) United States v. Oregon
* 366 U.S. 656 (1961) Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Superior Court of Delaware for New Castle County
* 366 U.S. 667 (1961) Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board
* 366 U.S. 683 (1961) Sam Fox Publishing Company v. United States
* 366 U.S. 696 (1961) United States v. Neustadt
* 366 U.S. 712 (1961) Lurk v. United States
* 366 U.S. 717 (1961) Irvin v. Dowd
* 366 U.S. 731 (1961) International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. National Labor Relations Board
* 366 U.S. 745 (1961) Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company v. United States
* 366 U.S. 761 (1961) Payne v. Madigan
* 366 U.S. 762 (1961) Giant Tiger Drugs, Inc. v. Ohio
* 366 U.S. 763 (1961) Local 553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board
* 366 U.S. 764 (1961) Hohegan International Corporation v. City of New York
* 366 U.S. 765 (1961) Simcox v. Madigan
# United States Reports/Volume 367

* 367 U.S. 1 (1961) Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board
* 367 U.S. 203 (1961) Scales v. United States
* 367 U.S. 290 (1961) Noto v. United States
* 367 U.S. 303 (1961) Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Company
* 367 U.S. 316 (1961) Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
* 367 U.S. 348 (1961) Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
* 367 U.S. 364 (1961) Gori v. United States
* 367 U.S. 374 (1961) United States v. Shimer
* 367 U.S. 389 (1961) Communist Party, U.S.A. v. Catherwood
* 367 U.S. 396 (1961) Power Reactor Development Company v. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
* 367 U.S. 421 (1961) Lott v. United States
* 367 U.S. 433 (1961) Reck v. Pate
* 367 U.S. 456 (1961) Deutch v. United States
* 367 U.S. 486 (1961) Conner v. Similer
* 367 U.S. 488 (1961) Torcaso v. Watkins
* 367 U.S. 497 (1961) Poe v. Ullman
* 367 U.S. 556 (1961) Piemonte v. United States
* 367 U.S. 568 (1961) Culombe v. Connecticut
* 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Mapp v. Ohio
* 367 U.S. 687 (1961) American Automobile Association v. United States
* 367 U.S. 717 (1961) Marcus v. Search Warrants of Property at 104 East Tenth Street Kansas City Missouri
* 367 U.S. 740 (1961) International Association of Machinists v. Street
* 367 U.S. 820 (1961) Lathrop v. Donohue
* 367 U.S. 886 (1961) Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy
# United States Reports/Volume 37

12 Pet.[ers], ( 9 L.Ed. )
* 37 U.S. 1 (1838) United States v. Laub
* 37 U.S. 11 (1838) Lessee of Swayze v. Burke
* 37 U.S. 27 (1838) United States v. Woolsey
* 37 U.S. 32 (1838) Bank of the United States v. Daniel
* 37 U.S. 59 (1838) Bradstreet v. Thomas
* 37 U.S. 66 (1838) McKinney v. Carroll
* 37 U.S. 72 (1838) United States v. Coombs
* 37 U.S. 84 (1838) M'Niel v. Holbrook
* 37 U.S. 91 (1838) Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Company
* 37 U.S. 101 (1838) West v. Brashear
* 37 U.S. 102 (1838) Beaston v. Farmers' Bank of Delaware
* 37 U.S. 140 (1838) Heirs of Wilson v. Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York
* 37 U.S. 143 (1838) Sarghet v. United States
* 37 U.S. 145 (1838) Scott v. Lloyd
* 37 U.S. 151 (1838) Zacharie v. Franklin
* 37 U.S. 164 (1838) Clarke Administrator of Wetmore v. Mathewson
* 37 U.S. 178 (1838) Clarke v. White
* 37 U.S. 201 (1838) Stelle v. Carroll
* 37 U.S. 207 (1838) Cunningham v. Jones
* 37 U.S. 215 (1838) United States v. Mills' Heirs
* 37 U.S. 218 (1838) Levy v. Arredondo
* 37 U.S. 221 (1838) Sons v. Batchelor
* 37 U.S. 234 (1838) Lyon v. Auchincloss
* 37 U.S. 238 (1838) White v. Turk
* 37 U.S. 241 (1838) Jenkins v. Pye
* 37 U.S. 264 (1838) Galloway v. Finley
* 37 U.S. 300 (1838) Toland v. Sprague
* 37 U.S. 339 (1838) Ex Parte Story
* 37 U.S. 345 (1838) Hepburn v. Dubois Lessee Wolcott
* 37 U.S. 378 (1838) Bradlie v. Maryland Insurance Company
* 37 U.S. 410 (1838) Strother v. Lucas
* 37 U.S. 472 (1838) Ex Parte Poultneys
* 37 U.S. 476 (1838) United States v. Kingsley
* 37 U.S. 488 (1838) Ex parte Sibbald
* 37 U.S. 497 (1838) Reynolds v. Douglass
* 37 U.S. 507 (1838) Choteau v. Marguerite
* 37 U.S. 511 (1838) Garcia v. Lee
* 37 U.S. 524 (1838) Kendall v. United States
* 37 U.S. 654 (1838) United States v. Delespine's Heirs Lazarus
* 37 U.S. 657 (1838) Rhode Island v. Massachusetts
* 37 U.S. 755 (1838) Massachusetts v. Rhode Island