OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States
## Concurring Opinion

    Blackmun

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
Supreme Court of the United States
406 U.S. 1
S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Claims
No. 70-88. Argued: October 21, 1971 and March 20, 1972 --- Decided: April 24, 1972
In a contract dispute procedure, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) approved claims of its contractor for additional compensation. In response to an AEC certifying officer's request for advice as to one item, however, the General Accounting Office (GAO) ruled that the claims could not be certified for payment. When the AEC then refused to pay the compensation, the contractor brought suit in the Court of Claims alleging that the GAO had no authority to overturn the AEC approval. The Government, through the Department of Justice, defended on the ground that the AEC determination was not final but was subject to judicial review under the standards specified in § 321 of the Wunderlich Act, "[t]hat... the same is fraudulent or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence." The Court of Claims held that "the Government has the right to the same extent as the contractor to seek judicial review of an unfavorable administrative decision on a contract claim."
Held:
    1. The AEC, which for the purpose of this contract was the United States, had exclusive administrative authority under the disputes clause procedure to resolve the dispute here at issue, and neither the contract between the parties nor the Wunderlich Act permitted still further administrative review by the GAO. Pp. 8-12.
    2. The Wunderlich Act does not confer upon the Department of Justice the right to appeal from a decision of an administrative agency, nor is this a case involving a contractor's fraud, concerning which the Department has broad powers to act under several statutory provisions. Pp. 12-19.
193 Ct. Cl. 335, 433 F. 2d 1373, reversed.
DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 19. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 23. REHNQUIST, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Geoffrey Creyke, Jr., reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was John P. Wiese.
Irving Jaffe reargued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Gray, Samuel Huntington, and Walter H. Fleischer.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Edward L. Wright, Beverly C. Moore, F. Trowbridge vom Baur, Overton A. Currie, Marshall J. Doke, Jr., Gilbert A. Cuneo, George M. Coburn, Eldon H. Crowell, and John A. McWhorter for the American Bar Association, and by Harold C. Petrowitz, pro se.
# Sherman v. United States (178 U.S. 150)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 150
Sherman v. United States
Argued: December 5, 6, 7, 1899. --- Decided: May 14, 1900
In the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York, on November complaint against the United States, seeking to recover from said defendant the sum of $8,969.02, which he claimed had been unjustly exacted by John G. Ward, collector of internal revenue for the fourteenth district of New York, from George T. Murdock, executor of the last will of Mrs. Jane H. Sherman, the mother of complainant, as a duty or tax imposed by virtue of the provision of the act of June 13, 1898; that said sum of $8,969.02 was deducted by the said executor from the income due and payable under the provisions of said will to the complainant; that the income, of which the complainant was entitled to receive an annual portion during his life, was composed in part of United States bonds, which the complainant avers to be, by virtue of the acts of Congress under which they were issued, nontaxable and nonassessable for the purposes of taxation.
The United States, appearing by Charles H. Brown, United States attorney for the northern district of New York, demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On hearing the circuit court sustained the demurrer, and ordered that the complin t be dismissed. A writ of error was allowed to this judgment, and the cause was brought to this court.
Messrs. Charles E. Patterson, Alpheus T. Bulkeley, Charles F. Southmayd, William V. Rowe, and Evarts, Choate, & Beaman for plaintiff in error.
Solicitor General Richards for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Shiras 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
# Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
356 U.S. 369
Sherman v. United States
Argued: Jan. 16, 1958. --- Decided: May 19, 1958
Mr. Henry A. Lowenberg, New York City, for the petitioner.
Mr. James W. Knapp, Washington, D.C., for the 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
# Sherrer v. Sherrer Coe

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 343
Sherrer v. Sherrer Coe
Argued: Oct. 13, 14, 1947. ---
Mr. Frederick M. Myers, of Pittsfield, Mass., for petitioner.
Messrs. Lincoln S.C.ain and Robert T. Capeless, both of Pittsfield, Mass., for respondent.
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
# Sherman v. United States (282 U.S. 25)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 25
Sherman v. United States (282 U.S. 25)
Argued: Oct. 30, 1930. --- Decided: Nov 24, 1930
Messrs. Karl D. Loos, of Washington, D. C., and Leon E. Morris, of San Francisco, Cal., for Sherman and others.
The Attorney General and Mr. John Lord O'Brian Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 25-27 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
# Scenes from a Courtesan's Life/Vautrin's Last Avatar

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Original French title: "La Dernière Incarnation de Vautrin". First published 1842. Included as part of La Comédie humaine.
* Section 1
* Section 2
* Section 3
* Section 4
* Section 5
* Section 6
* Section 7
* Section 8
* Section 9
* Section 10
* Section 11
* Section 12
* Section 13
* Section 14
* Section 15
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Sherman v. Grinnell (123 U.S. 679)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 679
Sherman v. Grinnell
R. M. Sherman, for plaintiff in error.
Treadwell Cleveland, W. M. Evarts, Jos. H. Choate, and C. C. Beaman, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# Sherlock v. Alling

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 99
Sherlock v. Alling
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana.
Argued by Mr. T. D. Lincoln for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. C. A. Korbly for the defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Sherlock Holmes Baffled

* related portals: Mystery film, Silent film.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Originally filmed in 1900.
Cast and Crew :
| Cast ||
| Role | Actor |
| Sherlock Holmes | Module:Cast and crew error: no Wikidata item provided |
| Crew ||
| Production company | Biograph Company |
| Distributor | Biograph Company |
| Director | Arthur Marvin (d. 1911) |
| Screenwriter | Arthur Conan Doyle (d. 1930) |
| Based on available information, the latest crew member that is relevant to international copyright laws died in 1930, meaning that this film may be in the public domain in countries and jurisdictions with 93 years p.m.a. or less, as well as in the United States. ||
Copyright 1903 BY American Mutoscope and Biograph Company
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Sherman v. Grinnell

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sherman v. Grinnell."
* 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.
* Sherman v. Grinnell (123 U.S. 679)
* Sherman v. Grinnell (144 U.S. 198)
# Shipley v. California/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
* Dissenting Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 818
Bruce Warnie SHIPLEY v. CALIFORNIA.
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in granting certiorari but dissents from the reversal and remand of the judgment without a hearing.
Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.

## 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
# Ship Potomac

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 581
Ship Potomac
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
On the 23d of November, 1855, the libel in this cause was filed in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, by Baker, a ship-wright and carpenter, in rem. against the ship Potomac, to recover a bill of repairs. The Potomac was a ship of more than five hundred tons, and was engaged in the general freighting business. She had just returned from a foreign voyage and was about to sail for Australia. The libel stated that the repairs were necessary and that without them she could not proceed to sea and earn freight and passage-money; that they were furnished on the credit of the vessel, and master and owners (the master was an owner); that the libellant had a lien upon her for them, and that the case was within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.
The answer admitted the repairing the vessel, but not to the amount claimed, and did not deny the jurisdiction, the necessity for the repairs or the lien.
The District Court made a decree that the libellant recover the amount of his repairs, and referred it to a Commissioner to ascertain the amount. The Commissioner reported $3,996.18, including the interest. The claimant excepted to the report.
The Court overruled the exceptions, and made a final decree that the libellant recover the amount reported by the Commissioner.
The claimant appealed to the Circuit Court from the whole of the final decree.
The libellants moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it had not been perfected. The motion was denied, on condition that the claimants deposit the amount of the decree in Court, which was done, and by order of the Court it was paid over to the libellants, on their giving a bond to obey the order of Court in the cause.
Much conflicting evidence was given upon the trial, the libellant proving his demand for work and materials from the books and accounts kept by his clerks in the ordinary course of business, while the claimant brought persons, said to be skilled in the business of building and repairing ships, to show that the amount expended upon the vessel, fell far short of that claimed by the libellant. The Circuit Court affirmed the decree of the District Court and the claimant took this appeal.
Mr. Gillet, of Washington City, for Appellant.
Mr. Benedict, of New York, contra.
Mr. Justice GRIER.

## 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
# Shipley v. California

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 818
Bruce Warnie SHIPLEY v. CALIFORNIA.
Kate Whyner, for petitioner.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Marvin A. Bauer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
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
# Ship Societe Martinson Master

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
13 U.S. 209
Ship Societe Martinson Master

## 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
# Shipe v. Brennan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 20
Shipe v. Brennan
Wilhelm E. Shissler, for appellants.
James W. Evans, for appellee.
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
# Shipe v. Brennan/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 20
Shipe v. Brennan
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## 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
# Sex/Chapter VII
## The husband

Marriage is the process by which a man and woman enter into a complete physical, legal and moral union. The natural object of marriage is the complete community of life for the establishment of a family.

## The marriageable age and adaption

At twenty-four the male body attains its complete development; and twenty-five is a proper age for the young man to marry. Romantic love, personal affection on a basis of congeniality, mutual adaptation, a similar social sphere of life, should determine his choice. Nature and custom indicate that the husband should be somewhat older than the wife.

## Men who should not marry

Men suffering with diseases which may be communicated by contagion or heredity should not marry. These diseases include: tuberculosis, syphilis, cancer, leprosy, epilepsy and some nervous disorders, some skin diseases and insanity. A worn-out rake has no business to marry, since marriage is not a hospital for the treatment of disease, or a reformatory institution for moral lepers. Those having a marked tendency to disease must not marry those of similar tendency. The marriage of cousins is not to be advocated. The blood relation tends to bring together persons with similar morbid tendencies. Where both are healthy, however, there seems to be no special liability to mental incompetency, though such marriages are accused of producing defective or idiot children. Men suffering from congenital defects should not marry. Natural blindness, deafness, muteness, and congenital deformities of limb are more or less likely to be passed on to their children. There are cases of natural blindness, though, to which this rule does not apply. Criminals, alcoholics, and persons disproportionate in size should not marry. In the last-mentioned, lack of mutual physical adaptability may produce much unhappiness, especially on the part of the wife. Serious local disease, sterility, and great risk in childbirth may result. Disparity of years, disparity of race, a poverty which will not permit the proper raising of children, undesirable moral character are all good reasons for not marrying.

## Medical examination before marriage

Medical examination as a preliminary to marriage is practically more valuable than a marriage license. Since many entirely innocent young girls to-day suffer from disease, incurred either through hereditary or accidental infection, a would-be husband may be said to be quite as much entitled to protection as his bride-to-be. Prohibitive physical defects are also discovered in this connection.
# Sex and Character/Index

INDEX
Printed by Ballantyne & Co. Limited
Tavistock Street, London
# Steele v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Steele v. United States."
* 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.
* Steele v. United States (113 U.S. 128)
* Steele v. United States (267 U.S. 498)
* Steele v. United States (267 U.S. 505)
# Steele v. United States (113 U.S. 128)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
113 U.S. 128
Steele v. United States
R. B. Washington and W. D. Davidge, for appellants.
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for appellee.
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
# Steele v. Steele

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
STEELE verʃus STEELE.
T
RUSH,Juʃtice; I think it would be moft convenient to give notice, that between two fpecific dates, acts of cruelty &c. were intended to be proved.
the court feemed to adopt that idea, and recommended it, for the future practice of the bar.
# Steele v. United States (267 U.S. 498)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 498
Steele v. United States (267 U.S. 498)
Argued: March 11, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
Mr. Meyer Kraushaar, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
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
# Steele v. United States (267 U.S. 505)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 505
Steele v. United States (267 U.S. 505)
Argued: March 11, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
Mr. Meyer Kraushaar, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
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