OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Green

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Green."
* 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. Green (138 U.S. 293), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Green (185 U.S. 256), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Green (350 U.S. 415), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Green (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Green (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Green (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
   * listing incomplete
# United States v. Garter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
170 U.S. 527
United States v. Garter
Asst. Atty. Gen. Pradt, for the United States.
F. P. Dewees, W. W. Dudley, and L. T. Michener, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BREWER 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. Gaskin

United States Supreme Court
320 U.S. 527
United States v. Gaskin
Argued: Dec. 7, 8, 1943. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1944
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.
Mr. W. Marvin Smith, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Marion B. Knight, of Blounstown, Fla., for appellee.
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 Nations Security Council Resolution 1965

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 6462nd meeting, on 22 December 2010
The Security Council,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force of 1 December 2010 (S/2010/607), and also reaffirming its resolution 1308 (2000) of 17 July 2000,
1.Calls upon the parties concerned to implement immediately its resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973;
2.Welcomes the efforts being undertaken by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force to implement the Secretary-General’s zero-tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse and to ensure full compliance of its personnel with the United Nations code of conduct, requests the Secretary-General to continue to take all necessary action in this regard and to keep the Security Council informed, and urges troop-contributing countries to take preventive and disciplinary action to ensure that such acts are properly investigated and punished in cases involving their personnel;
3.Decides to renew the mandate of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for a period of six months, that is, until 30 June 2011;
4.Requests the Secretary-General to submit, at the end of this period, a report on developments in the situation and the measures taken to implement resolution 338 (1973).
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1968

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
​Resolution 1968 (2011)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 6482nd meeting, on 16 February 2011
The Security Council,
Recalling its previous resolutions, in particular resolution 1967 (2011), 1962 (2010), 1951 (2010), 1946 (2010), 1942 (2010) and 1933 (2010) and statements of its President relating to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire and in the subregion,
Recalling the inter-mission cooperation arrangements provided for in paragraphs 4 to 6 of Security Council resolution 1609 (2005) and in paragraph 6 of resolution 1938 (2010), recalling further paragraphs 3 and 4 of resolution 1967 (2011) and paragraph 7 of resolution 1962 (2010),
Recalling its intention to consider authorizing the Secretary-General to redeploy further troops, as may be needed, between the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and the United Nations Mission in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI) on a temporary basis and mindful of the need to support UNMIL's ability to carry out its mandate,
Recalling the letter of the Secretary-General dated 7 January 2011 (S/2011/5) stressing the essential role played by the assets deployed from UNMIL to UNOCI in the current challenging circumstances in Côte d'Ivoire,
Reaffirming its full support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Côte d'Ivoire in carrying out his mandate,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
* Decides to authorize the Secretary-General, further to paragraphs 3 and 4 of resolution 1967 (2011), paragraph 6 of resolution 1962 (2010), resolution 1951 (2010) and paragraphs 4 and 6 of resolution 1609 (2005), to extend up to three months the temporary redeployment from UNMIL to UNOCI of three infantry companies, one aviation unit comprised of two military utility helicopters and three armed helicopters with crews;
* Requests the support of troop- and police-contributing countries in that regard;
* Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Nourse

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Nourse."
* 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. Nourse (31 U.S. 470)
* United States v. Nourse (34 U.S. 8)
# United States v. Nourse (31 U.S. 470)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 470
United States v. Nourse

## 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. Norton (91 U.S. 558)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 558
United States v. Norton
THIS case came up on a certificate of division between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Attorney-General Pierrepont, for the United States, submitted a motion to advance the cause.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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. Norton (97 U.S. 164)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
97 U.S. 164
United States v. Norton
In our opinion, this case is governed by the decision in United States v. Lapeyre (17 Wall. 191), which, although not concurred in by all the justices then composing the court, is accepted as conclusive upon the questions involved.
Under the ruling in that case, the proclamation took effect as of the beginning of June 13, 1865, and, therefore, covers all the transactions of that day to which it is applicable. We do not think this is a case in which fractions of a day should be taken into account.
While the questions of whether payments made under the circumstances of this case were voluntary or not, or whether, if voluntary, being made under a mutual mistake of law, can be recovered back, were not considered in the opinions filed, it is clear that the judgment rendered could not have been given, unless they had been decided adversely to the United States.
Judgment affirmed.
NOTE.-United States v. Ceif's Assignee, United States v. Levy, United States v. Rowan, United States v. Yorke, United States v. White, United States v. Bonnafon, and United States v. Ethel's Assignee, appeals from the Court of Claims, were also submitted at the same time and by the same counsel as was the preceding case. The first four involved similar facts to that case. In the remaining cases, the cotton was shipped to New Orleans from 'States in insurrection' June 26 and June 27, 1865, and the payment made in ignorance of the President's proclamation of June 24, 1865. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked, that they were all governed by the decision in the immediately preceding case, and that the judgment in each case was.
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
# United States v. Norton

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Norton."
* 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. Norton (91 U.S. 558)
* United States v. Norton (97 U.S. 164)
# United States v. Norton (91 U.S. 558)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 558
United States v. Norton
This is a criminal case. The motion to advance is made on behalf of the United States, upon the representation of the Postmaster-General, in substance, that the questions in dispute will embarrass the operations of the government while they remain unsettled. As our rule has but recently gone into operation, we will, in this case, accept this statement as sufficient, and grant the motion. Hereafter, motions to advance upon this ground must state the facts in such manner that we may judge whether the government will be embarrassed in the administration of its affairs by delay. In the present crowded state of the docket, it is our duty to see that cases are not unnecessarily brought forward to the prejudice of others.
The case may be set down for argument on the fifteenth day of March.

## 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. Adams (74 U.S. 463)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
74 U.S. 463
United States v. Adams

## 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. Adams (76 U.S. 554)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 554
United States v. Adams
The court is of opinion that a case has not been presented by the appellee, which would justify it in the exercise of its equitable powers to grant this relief.
The second rule of this court on appeals from the Court of Claims, in respect to making up the record, is as follows: 'A finding of the facts in the case by the said Court of Claims, and the conclusions of law on the facts on which the court founds its judgment or decree. The finding of the facts and the conclusions of law to be stated separately, and certified to this court as part of the record.'
The remedy, in case the Court of Claims falls into a mistake as to the finding of the facts, is familiar. It is by an application to this court to remit the case back for correction, if it be shown, satisfactorily, that a mistake has been committed.
In the case before us, it is admitted that the mistake was known to the party and his counsel in season to have had it corrected before hearing; but, relying on its immateriality, no step was taken to have the correction made. We do not doubt but that this opinion was honestly entertained, and that this motion is made in good faith; but it is impossible not to see that, if granted, the precedent might lead to great abuse and delay in the hearing of these cases. We should allow either party to lie by till the cause was decided, and the opinion delivered, and then to apply for the correction, as the exigency of the case might require, or as the materiality of the fact might appear from the ground upon which the decision was placed. On an appeal, the parties are entitled to have all the facts proved in the case before the court below, in the judgment of the court, truly found, and stated in the record, that either deemed material to the decision; and, as we have seen, the remedy is ample to correct any mistakes committed, if applied for prior to the hearing in this court. The court are not willing to go farther, and permit the remedy to be applied after the case is heard and decided, as we fear that such a precedent would work greater injustice and hardship, in its general use and application, than that which may exist in any particular case.
There is another view also, arising out of the facts upon which this motion is founded, which should be stated. Although it is true that the appellee did not present his claims before the board, as stated in the finding in the record on appeal, it cannot, in view of the facts which appear in the original record of the evidence before the Court of Claims, #fn-s-s-s well be denied but that he made himself a party to their proceedings, and took the benefit of the adjustment of his accounts by them, which brings the case within the principle decided in 7th Wallace.
MOTION DENIED.
# United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 366
United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
Argued: Oct. 19, 20, 1949. --- Decided: Dec 12, 1949
Mr. Leavenworth Colby, Washington, D.C., for the United states.
Mr. William A. Hyman, New York City, for Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Mr. Jackson G. Akin, Albuquerque, N.M., pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for respondent World Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
Mr. Abraham Frankel, Asbury Park, N.J., for Yorkshire Ins. Co. and Home Ins. Co.
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 v. Aetna Explosives Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 402
United States v. Aetna Explosives Company
Argued: April 27 and 28, 1921. --- Decided: May 16, 1921
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hanson for the United States.
Mr. Addison S. Pratt, of New York City, for respondent.
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
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 128

Chap. CXXVIII.—An Act to adjust the claims to lots in the town of Vincennes, and for sale of the land appropriated as a common for the use of the inhabitants of the said town.
The trustees of Vincennes authorized to adjust claims to lots in that town. If lots are found within the precincts to which individual claims not be substantiated, they are granted to the inhabitants, and may be sold, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the trustees of the town of Vincennes shall have power and they are hereby authorized to examine and adjust all claims to lots in the town of Vincennes; and if, upon an accurate survey, it shall be found that there are lots within the precincts of the town to which no individual claims can be substantiated, the same are hereby granted to the inhabitants thereof, to be sold by the trustees, and the money arising from the same to be applied to such public ​purposes as may be agreed upon by a majority of the citizens. And the said trustees are hereby empowered, in all cases, when they shall confirm claims to lots, to give deeds to the claimants for the same.
The trustees empowered to dispose of a tract of land, which, by act of March 3d, 1791, ch. 27, was appropriated as a common. The tract to be divided into lots and sold, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the trustees of the town of Vincennes shall have power, and they are hereby authorized, to dispose of a tract of land containing about five thousand four hundred acres, which, by the fifth section of the act, entitled “An act for granting lands to the inhabitants and settlers at Vincennes and the Illinois country, in the territory north-west of the Ohio, and for confirming them in their possessions,” passed on the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, was appropriated as a common, to the use of the inhabitants of the said town: the said tract shall be divided into lots, as the trustees shall direct, of not more than fifty nor less than the quantity of five acres, and shall be sold in the manner, and on the terms which may by them be deemed most expedient and advantageous. They shall also have power to convey, by complete title, the lots sold to the purchasers; and the proceeds of the lands so disposed of,Proceeds to be applied to the draining of a pond. Residue to Vincennes University. or so much thereof as may be necessary for the purpose, shall be applied, under the direction of the said trustees, to the draining of a pond in the vicinity of the town; and the residue of the money arising from the said sales, if any there be, shall be paid over to the trustees of the Vincennes University, and shall, by them, be applied the benefit of the said University.
Trustees to report to Congress.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said trustees, when they shall have performed the duties assigned to them under this act, shall make a report thereof to Congress.
Approved, April 20, 1818.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 13

Chap. XIII.—An Act making appropriations for the military service of the United States for the year one thousand eight hundred and eighteen.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, respectively, appropriated, viz:
Pay.For the pay of the army of the United States, one million three hundred and three thousand dollars:
Subsistence.For subsistence, one million twenty-five thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven dollars:
Bounties, &c.For bounties and premiums, forty-four thousand dollars:
Clothing.For clothing, six hundred and eighteen thousand one hundred and fifty dollars:
Hospital department.For the medical and hospital department, fifteen thousand dollars:
Ordnance.For the ordnance department, one hundred and fifty-four thousand two hundred dollars:
Contracts for cannon, &c.For fulfilling contracts already entered into for cannon and shot, seventy thousand three hundred dollars:
For arsenals, &c.For completing the arsenals, and other works, at Watertown, near Boston, thirty-nine thousand dollars:
For an arsenal near Augusta, in Georgia, forty thousand dollars:
For an arsenal at Baton Rouge, fifteen thousand dollars:
For an arsenal at Detroit, ten thousand dollars:
For completing the arsenal and other works, at Watervliet, near Albany, ten thousand dollars.
For completing the arsenal and other works, at Pittsburg, five thousand dollars:
Armories.For armories, three hundred thousand dollars:
Quartermaster.For the quartermaster’s department, four hundred and sixty thousand dollars:
Contingencies.For contingencies of the army, sixty thousand dollars:
Indian department.For the Indian department, two hundred thousand dollars:
For the purchase of maps, plans, books, and instruments, for the war office, one thousand dollars:Maps, &c.
Gratuities, &c.For gratuities and travelling expenses to soldiers discharged, seventy thousand dollars:
Fuel, &c. for West Point.For fuel, transportation, class books, repairs of barracks, and other buildings, and for contingent expenses for the military academy at West Point, twelve thousand and seventy-five dollars:
Medals.For the expense of medals for the officers of the army, ten thousand dollars.
Running lines, &c.For marking and running the lines of the several cessions of land made by the Indians in the Illinois territory, five thousand dollars:
For defraying the expense, which may have been incurred, for running and marking the boundary lines of the several cessions of land made by the Indians in the Missouri territory, five thousand dollars:
For expense of a brigade of militia.To defray the expense of employing a brigade of militia, three hundred and six thousand seven hundred and forty-three dollars.
Approved, February 19, 1818.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/15th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 14

Chap. XIV.—An Act concerning the district of Brunswick, in the state of Georgia.
Collector to reside at Darien. Darien sole port of entry. One surveyor for Brunswick, instead, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the collector of the district of Brunswick shall reside at Darien, which shall be the sole port of entry for the said district; and that, instead of a surveyor for the port of Darien there shall be one surveyor for the said district of Brunswick, who shall reside at such place in the said district as may be directed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Approved, March 9, 1818.