OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Alaska Steamship Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 113
United States v. Alaska Steamship Company
Argued: Dec. 16 and 17, 1919. --- Decided: May 17, 1920
Messrs. Charles W. Needham, of Washington, D. C., and Alexander C. King, Sol. Gen., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Messrs. Roscoe Hupper, of New York City, and Theodore W. Reath, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
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. Alcea Band of Tillamooks (329 U.S. 40)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Reed
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 40
United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks
Argued: Oct. 25, 1946. --- Decided: Nov 25, 1946
Mr.
Walter J. Cummings, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr.Everett Sanders, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
The CHIEF JUSTICE announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice MURPHY joined.

## 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. Alaska

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Alaska."
* 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. Alaska (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Alaska (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Alaska (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Alaska (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Alaska (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
   * listing incomplete
# United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks (341 U.S. 48)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 48
United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks
Argued: March 2, 1951. --- Decided: April 9, 1951
Mr. Philip B.
Perlman, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Edward F. Howrey, Louis A. Gravelle, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
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
# United States v. One Case of Clocks/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 99
United States v. One Case of Clocks
This is a libel of information, filed in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one case of clocks, for entry of goods upon an invoice, in which the goods were invoiced at a sum less than the actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to evade the duties.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was rendered; but, afterwards, the court arrested and set aside the judgment, and gave judgment for the claimants, dismissing the libel, which was affirmed on error in the circuit court.
For the reasons give in the case of The United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the record remitted 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 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. Omaha Tribe of Indians

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 275
United States v. Omaha Tribe of Indians
Argued: March 18, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1920
Mr. Charles H. Marillat, of Washington, D. C., for Omaha Tribe of indians.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis, for the United States.
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. One Distillery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 149
United States v. One Distillery
Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States.
Samuel G. Hilborn, for defendants in error.
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. One Ford Coach

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
307 U.S. 219
United States
Nos. 10, 627.
Reargued May 1, 1939.
Decided May 22, 1939.
Messrs. Frank Murphy, Atty. Gen., and Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Messrs. Duane R. Dills and Eugene E. Heaton, both of New York City, 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
# United States v. Olympic Radio and Television

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
349 U.S. 232
United States v. Olympic Radio and Television
Argued: April 18, 19, 1955. --- Decided: May 23, 1955
Asst. Atty. Gen. H. Brian Holland, for petitioner.
Mr. Frederick R. Tansill, Washington, D.C., 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. One Case of Clocks

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 99
United States v. One Case of Clocks
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. Vaca

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 556
United States v. Vaca
THIS was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Cushing, (attorney-general,) for the United States, and by Mr. Jones, with whom was Mr. Strode, 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
# United States v. Valante

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
264 U.S. 563
United States v. Valante
Argued: and Submitted April 8, 1924. --- Decided: April 21, 1924
Mr. George Ross Hull, of Washington, D. C., and the Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. Abner Siegal, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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. Vallejo (63 U.S. 416)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 416
United States v. Vallejo
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The appellee, Vallejo, presented to the board of land commissioners a claim for three square leagues of land, known by the name of Yulupa, situate in the county of Sonoma, California, having derived his title from Miguel Alvarado, the original grantee.
The documentary evidence of the title is: 1st. A grant in due form, dated Monterey, 23d November, 1844, purporting to be signed by Micheltorena, Governor, and Francisco Arce. secretary, with a memorandum by the secretary: 'Note has been made of this title in the proper book;' and 2d. A certificate of approval by the Departmental Assembly, bearing date at the city of Los Angeles, 18th February, 1845, signed by Pio Pico, Governor, and Jose M. Corvarubias, secretary.
Neither the grant nor the certificate of approval has been found among the Mexican archives, nor the record of them upon any book of records. Both papers came from the hands of the claimant. The genuineness of the title depends upon proof of the official signatures, and some evidence of possession.
The board rejected the claim; but on appeal to the District Court, and the production of further proof of possession, that court affirmed it.
The case falls within the views of the court in the United States v. Teschmaker and others, decided this term.
Decree reversed, and the case remanded for further evidence.

## 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. Vallejo

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Vallejo."
* 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. Vallejo (63 U.S. 416)
* United States v. Vallejo (66 U.S. 283)
* United States v. Vallejo (66 U.S. 541)
* United States v. Vallejo (68 U.S. 658)
# United States v. Vallejo (66 U.S. 283)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 283
United States v. Vallejo
This claim is founded upon a grant from Governor Alvarado to Lazaro Pina of the date of July 13, 1840. The original grant was not produced, and is supposed to have been lost during the war between the United States and Mexico, in which the grantee was killed. The espediente is numbered by Jimeno and noted in his index. It exists complete among the archives. The journal of the Departmental Assembly shows that the grant was approved October 8, 1845. Pina, the grantee, occupied the land for several years. The error of date in the conveyance from Pina to Vallejo cannot raise a suspicion against the regularity of the grant. It is the opinion of this court that the original claim is a good and valid claim, and that the same should be, and hereby is confirmed.
Decree of the District Court 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. Randenbush

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 288
United States v. Randenbush
ON a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania.
The defendant was indicted in April 1833, in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania, for passing a counterfeit note of the denomination of ten dollars, purporting to be a note issued by the Bank of the United States, with intent to defraud the bank scienter, &c.
He interposed three several pleas to this indictment, in the second of which he avers that the note described in the indictment, &c., was heretofore given in evidence, with the facts and circumstances attending the said passing thereof, on the the trial of defendant, upon a certain former indictment found against him for passing another ten dollar counterfeit note, to sustain that indictment; and that he was thereupon acquitted, &c.
To this plea the United States demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer; but as the opinions of the judges were opposed as to the judgment to be given thereon, the case was certified for the opinion of this court.
The case was argued by the Attorney-General for the United States. No counsel appeared for the defendant.
The Attorney-General submitted to the court the following points; and referred the court to the authorities on both sides of the question presented by them.
1. It appears by the record, that the offences for which the defendant was indicted, were not the same. Cited on this point: 2 Hale's P. Cr. 244; 4 Hawk. 316, 314; 1 Chitty's Crim. Law 453, 456; 1 Leach's Crown Law 242; 2 Leach's Crown Law 716; Rex v. Clarke, 1 Broad. and Bing. 473; 9 East 437; Van Horton v. Hawey, 2 New York City Recorder 73.
2. The acquittal upon the first indictment does not necessarily involve any decision upon the question presented by the last. Cited: 2 East 519; for the general principles, 522; Jackson v. Wood, 3 Wendell's Rep. 27; 8 Wendell's Rep. 9; Starkie on Evidence, part 2, sec. 65, 198, 202.
3. The passing of the note described in the last indictment, was not a fact embraced within the issue formed upon the former indictment; and if given in evidence on the trial of that issue, it could only have been as a collateral circumstance tending to prove the scienter in respect to the note described in the first indictment; and this does not protect the party from answering directly for the fact, in an indictment founded thereon. Starkie, part 4, 379, 380, 382.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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. Rands

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 121
United States v. Rands
Argued: Oct. 18, 1967. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1967
Robert S. Rifkind, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Alex L. Parks, Portland, Or., for respondents.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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. Randall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 513
United States v. Randall, Trustee in Bankruptcy
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
No. 125. Argued: February 22, 1971 --- Decided: March 24, 1971
The debtor corporation, kept in possession of its business by court order under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, did not comply with requirements that it deposit withheld taxes in a special tax account. It was later adjudicated a bankrupt, and the United States asked the bankruptcy court to pay the amount of withheld taxes prior to payment of costs and expenses of the bankruptcy proceedings, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7501 (a), which provides that the amount of withheld taxes "shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States." The referee denied the request, and the District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed.
Held: Section 64 (a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, which is an overriding statement of federal policy on the question of priorities, clearly provides that the first priority in payments from bankrupt estates belongs to the costs and expenses of administration incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. Pp. 515-517.
419 F. 2d 1068, affirmed.
DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HARLAN, BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK and STEWART, JJ., joined, post, p. 518.
Richard B. Stone argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, and Crombie J.D. Garrett.
Kevin J. Gillogly argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Daniel C. Ahern.

## 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. Randenbush/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 288
United States v. Randenbush
The defendant was indicted in April 1833, in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania, for passing a counterfeit note of the denomination of ten dollars, purporting to be a note of the Bank of the United States, with intent to defraud the bank, &c.
He pleaded that the note described in the indictment had been heretofore given in evidence on the trial of the defendant, upon a former indictment found against him for passing another counterfeit ten dollar note, upon which indictment he had been acquitted.
The United States demurred to this plea, and the defendant joined in demurrer.
The judges were opposed in opinion, on the question whether the judgment on the demurrer should be entered in favour of the United States or of the prisoner, which division of opinion is ordered to be certified to the supreme court of the United States.
The offence for which the defendant was indicted, and to which indictment he pleaded the plea of a former acquittal, was entirely a distinct offence from that on which the verdict of acquittal was found. The plea does not show that he had ever been indicted for passing the same counterfeit bill, or that he had ever been put in jeopardy for the same offence. We are therefore of opinion, that the matter pleaded is no bar to the indictment, and that the demurrer ought to be sustained. A certificate to this effect is to be given.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, and on the question and point on which the judges of the said circuit court were opposed in opinion, and which was certified to this court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court that judgment on the demurrer to the second plea pleaded by the defendant to the indictment filed against him, ought to be rendered for the United States. Whereupon, it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that it be certified to the said circuit court that judgment on the demurrer to the second plea pleaded by the defendant to the indictment filed against him, ought to be rendered for the United States.

## 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. Rauscher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 407
United States v. Rauscher
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On a Certificate of Division in Opinion between the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Sol. Gen. Goode, for the United States.
A. J. Wittenhoefer, for defendant.
MILLER, 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
# Vera; or, The Nihilists

Vera; or, The Nihilists is the first play written by Oscar Wilde. It is a melodramatic tragedy set in Russia. It was produced in the United Kingdom in 1880, and in New York in 1882, but folded after only a week. Warning: template has been deprecated.

### Persons in the Prologue

Peter Sabouroff (an Innkeeper)
Vera Sabouroff (his Daughter)
Michael Stroganoff (a Peasant)
Dmitri Sabouroff
Nicolas
Colonel Kotemkin

### Persons in the Play

Ivan the Czar
Prince Paul Maraloffski (Prime Minister of Russia)
Prince Petrovitch
Count Rouvaloff
Marquis de Poivrard
Baron Raff
General Kotemkin
A Page
Colonel of the Guard

### Nihilists

Peter Tchernavitch, President of the Nihilists
Michael
Alexis Ivanacievitch, known as a Student of Medicine
Professor Marfa
Vera Sabouroff
Soldiers, Conspirators, Etc.

## The Scenes of the Play

Prologue
Act I
Act II
Act III
Act IV
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
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/7th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 50

Chap. L.—An Act for the relief of Fulwar Skipwith.
Specific appropriation.Be it enacted, &c., That there be paid unto Fulwar Skipwith, out of any money in the public treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four thousand five hundred and fifty dollars, advanced by him for the use of the United States, with an interest at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the first day of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, at which time she advance was made.
Approved May 3, 1802.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/7th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 7

Chap. VII.—An Act for the relief of Lyon Lehman.
Certain duties to be refunded.Be it enacted, &c., That there be refunded and paid to Lyon Lehman, out of any money in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated by law, the sum of one thousand six hundred and eighty-four dollars; it being the amount of duties paid by the said Lyon Lehman, to the collector of the port of New York, on three thousand five hundred rifles and carabines, which were imported from Hamburgh, by the said Lyon Lehman, into the said port of New York, on board the American brig Acteon, Captain Josiah Wilson, in the month of October, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine.
Approved, March 6, 1802.