text:
Data protection is very important to us. Hereafter, we provide you with information on the collection of personal data during your utilisation of this website. Personal data is all data that can be related to you as a person, such as your name, address, e-mail addresses and user behaviour. We have implemented extensive technical and organisational safeguards to protect your data from accidental or intentional manipulation, loss, destruction or access by unauthorised persons. Our security procedures are checked regularly and adapted to technological progress.
The Controller pursuant to Art. 4(7) EU GDPR is: Ewald Dörken AG, Wetterstr. 58, D-58313 Herdecke (see our Legal notice).
Personal data is only gathered if you yourself notify us of it, such as when completing the contact form, registering or subscribing to our newsletter. We use this data exclusively for the purpose for which you have entered your data. It is only used for other purposes if expressly indicated or upon obtaining your consent pursuant to Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR. In certain cases personal data is gathered based on a legitimate interest under Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR (see Clause 4).
When the website is merely used to obtain information, we only gather the personal data that your browser transmits to our servers. Should you wish to view our website, we will collect the following data that we technically require to display our website to you and to ensure its stability and security.
– IP address, date and time of the request, time zone differences in relation to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), content of the request (specific page), access status/http status code, the respective quantity of data transmitted, website from which the request originates, browser, operating system and its interface, language and version of the browser software.
For purposes of the analysis and optimisation of our web pages, we use various services that are shown below. Thus, we can, for instance, analyse how many users visit our site, what information is of the greatest interest to users or how users discover the site. Among other data, we capture from what website a data subject came to our website (the so-called “Referrer URL”), what sub-pages of the website were accessed or how frequently, and for what length of time, a sub-page was viewed. This helps us to design our services in a user-friendly manner, and improve them. The data gathered in the process does not serve the purpose of personally identifying individual users. Anonymised- or, at the most, pseudonymised - data is gathered. The legal basis for it is Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR.
The Controller’s legitimate interest lies in optimising its website through website analysis programs.
This website uses Google Analytics, a web analysis service of Google Inc, (1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, USA). The use includes the operating mode Universal Analytics. This renders it possible to allocate data, sessions and interactions across several devices to one pseudonymised User ID and thus to analyse the activities of a user on a cross-device basis.
When you use our website, cookies are stored on your computer. Cookies are small text files that are stored on your hard disk, allocated to the browser which you use, and through which the entity placing the cookie receives specific information. Cookies are not able to execute programs or transfer viruses onto your computer. Their purpose is to make the website/Internet offer generally more user-friendly and effective.
The legal basis for the processing of personal data using cookies is Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR. The Controller’s legitimate interests lie in designing its website so as to be user-friendly and more effective.
These Cookies are deleted automatically once you close the browser. In particular, this includes the Session Cookies. They store a so-called Session ID, through which various inquiries/retrievals from your browsers can be allocated to the joint session. As a result, it is possible to recognise your computer if you return to our website. The Session Cookies are deleted when you log out or close the browser.
These Cookies are deleted automatically after a predefined period of time, which may differ depending on the cookie. You are able to delete the cookies at any time in the security settings of your browser.
You are able to configure your browser settings according to your wishes and, for instance, refuse the acceptance of third-party cookies or all cookies. We advise you that, in this event, you may not be able to use all the functions of this website.
Content of Google (Google, Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre, Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA), such as YouTube or Google Maps, is integrated into these online services. This always requires that the providers of such content (hereinafter referred to as “third-party providers”) note the users’ IP addresses. For without the IP address, they would not be able to send such contents to the browser of the respective user. The IP address is hence necessary for the presentation/display of these contents. We endeavour to use only contents regarding which the respective providers use the IP address solely for the delivery of these contents. However, we do not have any influence on the possible storage of IP addresses by the third-party providers e.g. for statistical purposes. If we become aware of such storage activities, we shall provide users with corresponding information. The legal basis for this is Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR. The legitimate interest, in that respect, consists in analysing, optimising and operating our online services economically.
We link in regard to any job vacancies to the website of “Ewald Dörken AG”. The data privacy statement on the website of “Ewald Dörken AG” applies, in that respect.
Basically, your data is not transmitted to third parties unless we are statutorily obliged to transmit it or it is necessary to pass on the data in order to implement the contractual relationship or you have explicitly consented in advance to your data being passed on.
When you use our website, you are not affected by any statutory or contractual obligation to provide information.
No automated decision-making is carried out. No profiling pursuant to Art. 22 GDPR is undertaken either.
You have a right to information, correction, deletion, limitation of processing, objection to the processing and data portability. Should any processing be based on your consent, you have the right to contact us and object to it, with effect for the future.
Pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation, you are entitled – for reasons arising from your particular situation – to raise objections at any time against the processing of data relating to you as a person, which is conducted on the grounds of Article 6 (1) point e of the General Data Protection Regulation (data processing for the public benefit) or on the grounds of Article 6 (1) point f of the General Data Protection Regulation (data processing for the protection of a legitimate interest). This also applies to any profiling activities conducted on the basis of this provision. If you raise an objection, we shall cease processing your personal data unless we are able to provide mandatory reasons for the processing of your data, which are worthy of protection and outweigh your interests, rights and freedoms, or unless the processing of your data serves to assert, exercise or defend legal claims.
Where we process your personal data for purposes of direct advertising, you are entitled pursuant to Article 21 (2) of the General Data Protection Regulation to raise objections at any time against the processing of data relating to you as a person for the purpose of such advertising activities. This also applies to profiling activities as far as they relate to such acts of direct advertising.
In addition, you are entitled to lodge a complaint with a data protection supervisory authority about the processing of your personal data by us.
When you make contact with us by e-mail or via a contact form, the data notified by you (your e-mail address, your first and last name, form of address and telephone number) is stored by us in order to answer your questions. The online contact form for requesting a deposit approval contains the following information: Form of address, name, e-mail address, date of birth, telephone number and postal address. If we enquire about details that are not necessary for making contact, via our contact form, we have marked them as optional in each case. Such details only serve the purpose of specifying your enquiry and improved processing of your concern. These details are notified expressly on a voluntary basis and with your consent (see Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR). Should the former concern details on channels of communication (for example e-mail address, telephone number), you also consent to us possibly also contacting you via such communications channel, in order to answer your query. You can naturally revoke your consent with effect for the future at any time.
We shall delete the data stored within this context after their storage is no longer necessary, or restrict the processing of such data in the event that statutory storage obligations are in place.
We have implemented extensive technical and organisational safeguards to protect your data from accidental or intentional manipulation, loss, destruction or access by unauthorised persons. Our security procedures are checked regularly and adapted to technological progress.

matches:
Art. 4
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 22
Art. 6


text:
19-3505. Board; election; terms; officers; oath; qualifications; salary; expenses; bonds. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, the governing body of any water district to which this section applies shall be a five-member board holding positions numbered one to five, inclusive. Each member shall be elected and shall hold office from May 1 following such member's election until April 30, four years thereafter and until a successor is elected and has qualified.
The first election of members of the governing body of any water district created after the effective date of this act shall be held on the first Tuesday in August of any even-numbered year, at which time members shall be elected for terms beginning on September 1 of the same year, and ending on April 30 of the third year following the beginning of such term, to positions numbered three, four and five. At such first election, members shall be elected for terms ending on April 30 of the first year following the beginning of such terms, to positions numbered one and two. Members first elected to positions one and two shall have terms of approximately eight months. Elections shall be thereafter held on the first Tuesday in April of each odd-numbered year for the member positions whose terms expire in that year.
(c) Elections shall be held on the first Tuesday in April of each odd-numbered year for the positions which terms expire in that year. Members shall hold office from May 1, following such member's election until April 30, four years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. All elections shall be nonpartisan and shall be called and conducted by the county election officer. Laws applying to other local elections occurring at the same time and in the same locality shall apply to elections under this act to the extent that the same can be made to apply.
(d) Following each election the board shall organize and not later than the second regular meeting following each election shall select from among its members a chairperson and a vice-chairperson. The vice-chairperson shall preside over any meetings at which the chairperson is not present. Vacancies occurring during a term shall be filled for the unexpired term by appointment by the remaining members. All members shall take an oath of office as prescribed for other public officials. The members of the board shall be qualified electors in the water district. Prior to accepting office, the water district shall obtain for each member-elect a corporate surety bond to the state of Kansas in the amount of $10,000, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the member's duties and for the true and faithful accounting of all money that may come into the member's hands by virtue of the office. Such bonds shall be filed in the office of the county clerk for the county in which the major portion of such water district is located after approval by the board of county commissioners of such county.
History: L. 1951, ch. 240, § 5; L. 1957, ch. 192, § 2; L. 1969, ch. 162, § 1; L. 1973, ch. 124, § 1; L. 1974, ch. 127, § 2; L. 1975, ch. 170, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 125, § 3; L. 1987, ch. 103, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 91, § 1; July 1.

matches:
§ 5
§ 2
§ 1
§ 1
§ 2
§ 1
§ 3
§ 1
§ 1


A difficult question has arisen where labor has to be expended on the thing sold before the contract is executed, and the property transferred, as to whether the contract is for the sale of goods within the seventeenth section, or for work and labor, and therefore enforceable if to be performed within a year, so as not to be within the fourth section. The decisions on this question are not in accord.
In some states it is held that a contract for the sale of something which the seller ordinarily makes and sells in the course of his business is a contract for the sale of goods, and not for work and labor, though he may not have the goods on hand, but may have to manufacture them; but, if the goods are not such as he ordinarily makes, and have to be specially manufactured for the buyer, the contract is for work and labor.1* This is commonly called the Massachusetts rule and has been so generally adopted that it is sometimes referred to as the American rule.
10 Baldey v. Parker, 2 Barn. & C. 37. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 85; Cent. Dig. § 141.
11 Lee v. Griffin, 1 Best & S. 272. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 88; Cent. Dig. §§ 147-153.
12 Pratt v. Miller, 109 Mo. 78, 18 S. W. 965, 32 Am. St. Rep. 656; Burrell v. Highleyman, 33 Mo. App. 183. See "Frauds, Statute of," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 83; Cent. Dig. §§ 147-158.
13 See cases cited post, notes 14, 15.


Why is this important? What kinds of problems does it address, and what kinds of programmers is it intended to support? Is it based on existing practice?
Compared to C++ [ISO:14882], C99 [ISO:9899] provides an extended <math.h> header and library. Among the additions introduced by C99 are selected mathematical functions from categories of particular interest to the numerical computing communities: exponential and logarithmic functions, circular and hyperbolic functions, and special functions.
All these functions either (a) are already part of the C++ standard library, or (b) have already been proposed [Plauger] and discussed [Dawes, Item 1] for incorporation into the forthcoming C++ Library Technical Report [Josuttis]. We here propose to augment the C++ standard library with additional functions from the above Special Functions category.
Mathematical Special Functions are appropriate for this TR because they plug an obvious hole ("Filling Gaps," as [Austern] phrases it) in the existing standard library. While these functions are clearly numerical in nature and will likely be most heavily used by the scientific and engineering communities, other communities of programmers also have needs, ranging from frequent to intermittent, for these functions.
This Special Functions proposal additionally falls into the "Standards Coordination and Infrastructure" categories identified in [Austern] as targets for the TR, for this proposal is based on an existing standard, Quantities and units [ISO:31] Part 11: Mathematical signs and symbols for use in the physical sciences and technology. We draw particular attention to the tables constituting ISO:31-11 paragraphs 8 ("Exponential and logarithmic functions"), 9 ("Circular and hyperbolic functions"), 10 ("Complex numbers"), and 14 ("Special functions").
There is a long history of implementation experience with these functions, as evidenced, for example, by section C of the Fortran-based SLATEC Common Mathematical Library [SLATEC]. Today, special functions constitute important subsets of such well-respected add-on libraries as the NAG C Library, [NAG], the IMSL C Numerical Library [IMSL], and the GNU Scientific Library [GSL]. Further, some standard C libraries such as the SGI C library [SGI] and the GNU C library [GNU C] also provide, as extensions, a few of the proposed special functions. The benefits of incorporating them into the C++ Standard Library include predictability of interface and behavior across a broad spectrum of implementations, leading to improved portability and interoperability for applications that make use of these functions.
Finally, we believe that adoption of this proposal would send a clear message to the various numeric computing communities that, contrary to significant popular belief within these communities, C++ is an eminently suitable programming language for their problem domain, too.
This proposal is a pure extension. It does not require any changes in the core language. It does not require changes to any standard classes or functions. It does not require changes to any of the standard requirement tables. All the functions are mathematically well-understood, all have proven their utility in practice over a considerable period of time, and all have been previously implemented in C and C++.
This proposal does not depend on any other C++ library extensions. This proposal potentially overlaps slightly with another proposal [Plauger] that would incorporate the bulk of C99's library additions into C++. The potential commonality between the two proposals is, however, limited to a rather tiny part of <math.h> that is essentially identical in the two proposals; see section V for details.
A. How to Package the Additional Declarations?
Following the precedent set by C99, this proposal recommends that declarations for all the proposed special functions be incorporated into <math.h> and thence extended into <cmath> in the obvious way.
An alternative design would present these additional declarations in a new header. Obvious names for this header, e.g., <special_functions.h>, seem unwieldy, and no suitably descriptive shorter names have come to mind. Further, it seems likely that implemention of some of the special functions can make advantageous use of extant functionality in <math.h> and so it seemed reasonable to avoid the separation.
B. Which Special Functions to Incorporate?
Because the set of mathematical functions that can be considered Special Functions is potentially unbounded, we considered several options in selecting our list of candidates for standardization.
This proposal recommends adoption of the list of Special Functions specified in the ISO standard Quantities and units [ISO:31, Part 11, paragraph 14]. This list has already received international scrutiny and endorsement via the standardization process. Further consultations with respected scientific colleagues have confirmed that these Special Functions would, if incorporated into the C++ standard library, constitute a significant contribution to the numeric community.
We considered, third, adopting a list taken from an existing library in this domain. The Special Functions portion of the GNU Scientific Library [GSL], for example, seemed to present a reasonable set for consideration. Indeed, these functions largely constitute a superset of the list recommended above, and are all clearly implementable. However, we felt it advantageous to require only the functions in the above list, in order to allow implementers the freedom to add value by providing additional functions.
A final possibility was the construction of an ad hoc list of Special Functions. We rejected this as the least defensible of the alternatives, since there are no obvious criteria for accepting some and rejecting others, other than a feel for general utility.
We note, in passing, that we have omitted both the cylindrical and the spherical Hankel functions from our list of candidates for standardization. Our motivation for this is straightforward: we have restricted ourselves to functions taking real-valued arguments, and producing real-valued results. The Hankel functions do not qualify.
C. Function Templates or Overloaded Functions?
It is possible to declare the desired additional <cmath> functionality in either of two ways: as (specialized) function templates or as families of overloaded functions. We recommend overloading.
This recommendation based in significant part on arguments favoring consistency of form with the existing contents of the affected headers: There are no templates today in <math.h> or in <cmath>. Further, we are unaware of any current Special Functions implementation that is based on template technology.
Additional reasons take into account the possible future extension of the new functions to additional headers (such as, for example, <complex>). To do so in the presence of function templates would raise such issues as the location of the primary template and the concomitant need to coordinate multiple cooperating headers. We prefer to avoid such entanglements.
D. Exceptions or Error Codes?
Most of the proposed functions must advise their caller of domain and/or range errors. In the context of C++, this would arguably be best done by throwing appropriate exceptions.
However, no standard functions in <cmath> today throw exceptions. Rather, mimicking the behavior of the functions in <math.h>, each sets a global errno variable to a suitable code (i.e., EDOM or ERANGE) defined in <cerrno>.
We recommend that this existing behavior be preserved with respect to the proposed new functions. Not only is this a matter of consistency, but it preserves the possibility that a compatible version of this proposal might be incorporated into a future revision of C99.
E. Traditional or Extended Error Codes?
Having recommended, in the previous subsection, the continued use of error codes, a further question arises: Are the existing EDOM, ERANGE error codes sufficient to the needs of the proposed Special Functions?
We note that several current implementations of some of the proposed Special Functions do define their own codes to supplement the codes mandated by the standard. They incorporate codes for such situations as overflow, underflow, loss of precision, singularities, and the like, and make these codes accessible via additional global variables analogous to errno, or via other means.
Nothing in this proposal should be construed as preventing implementors from such optional extensions. However, this proposal recommends against requiring such behavior. We base this recommendation on consistency with current standards. In particular, we call attention to §7.12.1 of C99 [ISO:9899].
F. Traditional or Descriptive Function Names?
In selecting names for the proposed new functions, we were moved to retain their traditional (mathematical) names. For example, we kept the names of a few functions which are customarily denoted using Greek letters (spelled out, of course: beta, zeta [but tgamma for compatibility with C99]). We also kept the function names erf and erfc because they are both traditional and descriptive, as well as for compatibility with C99.
In the remaining (majority of) cases, the traditional mathematical names are mostly single letters (e.g., J and N). We judged such names to be too brief and insufficiently descriptive for programming purposes. Also, such one-character names are frequently reserved by coding standards to signify local variables. For these reasons, we recommend against use of the traditional names. Instead, we chose such names as bessel_J and neumann_N, combining a descriptive prefix with a traditional suffix.
We note in passing that this policy resulted in a few pairs of our names that differ only in the case of a single character (e.g., bessel_J and bessel_j). In each instance, this is an artifact of the traditional mathematical naming convention that we preserved on the basis of prior art as the accepted canonical mathematical nomenclature. While some coding standards recommend or require avoidance of multiple identifiers that differ only in case, we believe it appropriate in the present context to embrace case-sensitivity in distinguishing otherwise-identical names.
G. Real- or Complex-valued Domains and Results?
Many of the proposed special functions have definitions over some or all of the complex plane as well as over some or all of the real numbers. Further, some of these functions can produce complex results, even over real-valued arguments. The present proposal restricts itself by considering only real-valued arguments and (correspondingly) real-valued results.
Our investigation of the alternative led us to realize that the complex landscape for the special functions is figuratively dotted with land mines. In coming to our recommendation, we gave weight to the statement from a respected colleague that "Several Ph.D. dissertations would [or could] result from efforts to implement this set of functions over the complex domain." This led us to take the position that there is insufficient prior art in this area to serve as a basis for standardization, and that such standardization would be therefore premature. While we could perhaps consider standardizing some subset of the special functions over the complex domain, we far prefer to treat this set of special functions as a unit.
We further ruled out (via domain errors, for example) the possibility that these special functions could return complex results. In making this recommendation, we followed the past practice of C++ and of C99: functions taking real arguments always return real results; only functions taking complex arguments return complex results. Perhaps the best example of this is the sqrt function: it always returns a value of type matching its parameter's type. To do otherwise opens the door to a number of small, but bothersome technical issues. As one example, which header (<cmath> or <complex>) would declare such a function whose domain and range are different?
Finally, none of our colleagues or reviewers has presented any compelling need or rationale for the extension to the complex domain or range. While there would certainly be some segments of the user community that could take advantage of such functionality (and we certainly don't mean to prohibit vendors from providing such as extensions), there seems to be insufficient demand to require such at present.
Among the functions in this proposal, there are several (e.g., spherical harmonics: sph_Y()) for which multiple phase and normalization conventions exist. Because the choices do not easily co-exist, we have opted to resolve any such ambiguities by appealing to a common source, the aforementioned standard Handbook of Mathematical Functions by [Abramowitz & Stegun].
It has been suggested that the functions constituting the subject of this proposal be reviewed within the framework of one or more parts of the International Standard for Language Independent Arithmetic [ISO:10967-1, ISO:10967-2, ISO:10967-3]. While we applaud the motivation underlying the suggestion, we recommend against such a perspective, believing it to be premature and not yet feasible.
Only LIA Part 1 has been formally adopted as an International Standard: LIA Part 2 is a Final Draft, while LIA Part 3 is only a Committee Draft. Further, LIA Part 1 does not speak to the subject of the present proposal, while Parts 2 and 3 restrict themselves to coverage of "elementary" numerical functions such as those already part of the C++ standard library. Thus, none of the LIA documents addresses (or even mentions) any of the functions comprising the present proposal.
Finally, we note that the C++ standards body has to date not adopted any "conformity statement" regarding the LIA "binding standard" to be used by a conforming C++ implementation. In the absence of such guidance, it is unclear how to apply to C++ the principles (let alone the details) of the LIA documents.
In our view, the present situation is best summarized as constituting a lack of prior art: C++ has not determined how LIA is to apply to an implementation and, in any event, none of the functions comprising the present proposal are in the scope of the LIA documents as currently drafted. For these reasons, we believe there is today an insufficient basis on which to evaluate the present proposal with respect to LIA.
Note: the wording presented in these subsections describes the contents of the <cmath> header. The changes to describe analogous contents in <math.h> are straightforward and consist primarily of function renaming to avoid overloading.
These functions compute the cylindrical Bessel functions of the first kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §9.1.10, etc.]) of their respective arguments l and x. A domain error occurs if l is less than zero. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the bessel_J function.
The bessel_J functions return Jl(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.1].
These functions compute the cylindrical Neumann functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §9.1.2, etc.]), also known as the cylindrical Bessel functions of the second kind, of their respective arguments l and x. A domain error occurs if x is less than or equal to zero. A range error (due to overflow) occurs (a) if the magnitude of l is too large, or (b) if x is too small. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the neumann_N function.
The neumann_N functions return Nl(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.2].
These functions compute the regular modified cylindrical Bessel functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §9.6.3, etc.) of their respective arguments l and x. A domain error occurs if l is not an integer and either (a) l is less than or equal to zero or (b) x is less than or equal to zero. A range error occurs if x is too large.
The bessell_I functions return Il(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.4].
These functions compute the irregular modified cylindrical Bessel functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §9.6.4, etc.]) of their respective arguments l and x. A domain error occurs if l is not an integer and either (a) l is less than or equal to zero or (b) x is less than or equal to zero. A range error occurs (a) if the magnitude of l is too large, or (b) if x is too small.
The bessell_K functions return Kl(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.4].
These functions compute the spherical Bessel functions of the first kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §10.1.1, etc.) of their respective arguments l and x. A domain error occurs if l is less than zero. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if l equals zero and the magnitude of x is too small. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the bessel_j function.
The bessell_j functions return jl(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.5].
These functions compute the spherical Neumann functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §10.1.1, etc.]), also known as the spherical Bessel functions of the second kind, of their respective arguments x. A domain error occurs if x is less than or equal to zero. A range error (due to overflow) occurs (a) if the magnitude of l is too large, or (b) if the magnitude of x is too small. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the neumann_n function.
The neumann_n functions return nl(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.6].
These functions compute the Legendre polynomials (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §8.1.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments l and x. A domain error occurs if x is greater than one. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the legendre_Pl function.
The legendre_Pl functions return Pl(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.8].
These functions compute the associated Legendre functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §8.1.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments l, m, and x. A domain error occurs (a) if m is greater than l, or (b) if x is greater than one. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if l is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the legendre_Plm function.
The legendre_Plm functions return Plm(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.9].
These functions compute spherical harmonic functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §8.1.1 footnote 2, etc.) of their respective arguments l, m, theta, and phi. A domain error occurs if the magnitude of m is greater than l. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if l is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if either theta or phi is too close to any of the roots of the sph_Y function.
The sph_Y functions return Ylm(φ,θ) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.10].
These functions compute the Hermite polynomials (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §13.6.17 and -.18, etc.) of their respective arguments n and x. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if the magnitude of x is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the hermite function.
The hermite functions return Hn(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.11].
These functions compute the Laguerre polynomials (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §13.6.9, etc.]) of their respective arguments n and x. A range error occurs (due to overflow) if the magnitude of x is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the laguerre_0 function.
The laguerre_0 functions return Ln(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.12].
These functions compute the associated Laguerre polynomials (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §13.6.9, etc.]) of their respective arguments n, m, and x. A domain error occurs if m is greater than n. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if the magnitude of x is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the laguerre_m function.
The laguerre_m functions return Lnm(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.13].
These functions compute the hypergeometric functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §15.1.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments a, b, c, and x. A domain error occurs if the magnitude of x is greater than or equal to one. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if the magnitude of x is too close to one at the same time that c-a-b is an integer. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the hyperg_2F1 function.
The hyperg_2F1 functions return F(a,b;c;x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.14].
These functions compute the confluent hypergeometric functions (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §13.1.2, etc.]) of their respective arguments a, c, and x. A domain error occurs (a) if c is a negative integer, or (b) if c is zero. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if the magnitude of x is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to any of the roots of the hyperg_1F1 function.
The hyperg_1F1 functions return F(a;c;x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.15].
These functions compute the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §17.2.6, etc.) of their respective arguments k and phi. A domain error occurs (a) if k is less than or equal to zero, or (b) if k is greater than or equal to one, or (c) if phi is negative. A range error occurs if the magnitude of k is too close to one.
The ellint_F functions return F(k,φ) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.16].
These functions compute the complete elliptic integral of the first kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §17.3.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments k. A domain error occurs (a) if k is less than or equal to zero, or (b) if k is greater than or equal to one. A range error occurs if the magnitude of k is too close to one.
The ellint_K functions return K(k) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.16].
These functions compute the incomplete elliptic integral of the second kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §17.2.9, etc.]) of their respective arguments k and phi. A domain error occurs (a) if k is less than or equal to zero, or (b) if k is greater than or equal to one, or (c) if phi is negative. A range error occurs if the magnitude of k is too close to one.
The ellint_E functions return E(k,φ) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.17].
These functions compute the complete elliptic integral of the second kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §17.2.9, etc.) of their respective arguments k and phi. A domain error occurs (a) if k is less than or equal to zero, or (b) if k is greater than or equal to one. A range error occurs if the magnitude of k is too close to one.
The ellint_E2 functions return E(k) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.17].
These functions compute the incomplete elliptic integral of the third kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §17.7.1, etc.) of their respective arguments k, n, and phi. A domain error occurs (a) if k is less than or equal to zero, or (b) if k is greater than or equal to one, or (c) if phi is negative. A range error occurs if the magnitude of k is too close to one.
The ellint_P functions return Π(k,n,φ) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.18].
These functions compute the complete elliptic integral of the third kind (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §17.7.2, etc.) of their respective arguments k, n, and phi. A domain error occurs (a) if k is less than or equal to zero, or (b) if k is greater than or equal to one. A range error occurs if the magnitude of k is too close to one.
The ellint_P2 functions return Π(k,n,π/2) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.18].
These functions compute the beta function (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §6.2 and §6.1]) of their respective arguments x and y. A domain error occurs (a) if either x or y is a negative integer, or (b) if either x or y is zero. A range error occurs if the magnitude of x or the magnitude of y is too large or too small.
The beta functions return Β(x,y) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.20].
These functions compute the exponential integral (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §5.1.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments x. A domain error occurs if x is less than or equal to zero. A range error (due to overflow) occurs (a) if x is to small, or (b) if x x is too large. A range error (due to underflow) occurs if x is too close to the single root of the ei function.
The ei functions return Ei(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.21].
These functions compute the Riemann zeta function (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §23.2.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments x. A range error (due to overflow) occurs if x is too close to one.
The zeta functions return ζ(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.23].
We noted in section II that there is a small potential overlap between this proposal (which is based on [ISO:31]) and an earlier proposal (which is based on [C99]). However, no competition is intended between the two proposals. Indeed, we have coordinated efforts to ensure that no incompatibilities result.
In particular, this section describes three functions (erf, erfc, and tgamma) originating in the C99 library and previously proposed for C++ standardization as part of [Plauger]. They are mentioned in the present proposal for two reasons, however: (1) these functions are traditionally characterized as mathematical special functions, and (2) they form part of [ISO:31], on which our proposal is based.
We emphasize that these functions are here described solely in the interest of completeness so that the full spectrum of envisioned mathematical special functions may be viewed together. For purposes of the C++ standardization effort, these functions should be considered part of the [Plauger] proposal. The language in the remainder of this section should therefore be considered solely for informative purposes.
These functions compute the gamma function (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §6.1.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments x. A domain error occurs (a) if x is a negative integer, or (b) if x is zero. A range error occurs if the magnitude of x is too large or too small.
The tgamma functions return Γ(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.19].
This family of overloaded functions corresponds to the functions specified in [C99, §7.12.8.4].
These functions compute the error function (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §7.1.1, etc.]) of their respective arguments x.
The erf functions return erf(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.22].
This family of overloaded functions corresponds to the functions specified in [C99, §7.12.8.1].
These functions compute the complementary error function (as defined by [Abramowitz & Stegun, §7.1.2, etc.]) of their respective arguments x.
The erf functions return erfc(x) as denoted in [ISO:31, Item No. 11-14.22].
This family of overloaded functions corresponds to the functions specified in [C99, §7.12.8.2].
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the significant contributions provided by a number of colleagues at Fermilab: James Amundson, Mark Fischler, Jeffrey Kallenbach, Leo Michelotti, and Marc Paterno. Their active participation has materially improved this proposal, and their inspiration and support are deeply appreciated.
We extend special thanks to our Fermilab colleague John Marraffino for his extensive involvement with all aspects of this proposal's development.
We have also received valuable input and feedback from Matt Austern, Beman Dawes, Gabriel Dos Reis, and Fred J. Tydeman. We are grateful to them and to our outside reviewers for their careful consideration of earlier drafts of this document: Their thoughtful comments and suggestions inspired several refinements and enhancements to this proposal.
Finally, we appreciate the support of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory's Computing Division, sponsors of our participation in the C++ standards effort. Thank you, one and all.
Abramowitz, Milton, and Irene A. Stegun (eds.): Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables, volume 55 of National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC: 1964. Reprinted with corrections, Dover Publications: 1972. http://members.fortunecity.com/aands.
Austern, Matt: Notes on Standard Library Extensions. WG21/N1314 (same as J16/01-0028): 17 May 2001.
Dawes, Beman: Library Technical Report Proposals and Issues List (Revision 4). WG21/N1397 (same as J16/02-0055): 2002.
GNU C Library Steering Committee The GNU C Library. http://www.gnu.org/manual/glibc-2.0.6/html_node/libc_toc.html.
Galassi, Mark, et al.: The GNU Scientific Library. 2002. http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/gsl.html.
Visual Numerics, Inc.: IMSL C Numerical Library Version 5.0. Unpublished. http://www.vni.com/products/imsl/docs/cmath.pdf.
International Standards Organization: Quantities and units, Third edition. International Standard ISO 31-11:1992. ISBN 92-67-10185-4.
International Standards Organization: Programming Languages -- C, Second edition. International Standard ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
International Standards Organization: Information technology -- Language independent arithmetic -- Part 1: Integer and floating point arithmetic. International Standard ISO/IEC 10967-1:1994.
International Standards Organization: Information technology -- Language independent arithmetic -- Part 2: Elementary numerical functions. Draft International Standard ISO/IEC FDIS 10967-2:2000.
International Standards Organization: Information technology -- Language independent arithmetic -- Part 3: Complex integer and floating point arithmetic and complex elementary numerical functions. Draft International Standard ISO/IEC CD 10967-3.1:2002.
International Standards Organization: Programming Languages -- C++. International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:1998.
Josuttis, Nicolai: A New Work Item Proposal: Technical Report for Library Issues. WG21/N1283 (same as J16/00-0060): 26 October 2000.
The Numerical Algorithms Group: The NAG C Library Manual, Mark 7. The Numerical Algorithms Group, Ltd., Oxford, UK: 2002. http://www.nag.com/numeric/CL/manual/html/CLlibrarymanual.asp.
Plauger, P. J.: Proposed C99 Library Additions to C++ (Revised). WG21/N1372 (same as J16/02-0030): 2002. http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1372.txt.
Silicon Graphics, Inc.: Introduction to mathematical library functions. 2002. http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?coll=0650&db=man&fname=/usr/share/catman/p_man/cat3/standard/math.z&srch=math.
Fong, Kirby W., et al.: Guide to the SLATEC Common Mathematical Library. July 1993. http://www.netlib.org/slatec/guide.


text:
BlogNews and AnalysisAll Current SCOTUS Justices Supported Brown v. Board at Their Nominations Hearings — Why Won’t Some of Trump’s Nominees?
All Current SCOTUS Justices Supported Brown v. Board at Their Nominations Hearings — Why Won’t Some of Trump’s Nominees?
As Donald Trump and his collaborators have violated one democratic norm after another, things once thought impossible have become common. Even our strong national consensus supporting the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision seems to be fraying, as demonstrated by several of Trump’s most recent judicial nominees.
In recent weeks, nominees such as Andrew Oldham (Fifth Circuit) and Wendy Vitter (Eastern District of Louisiana) have gone to great lengths to avoid answering perhaps the simplest “gimme” question possible: Was Brown rightly decided? And it isn’t just them; at a hearing for four district court nominees on the same day as Oldham’s, they all dodged the question. Amazingly, some of Trump’s nominees are claiming that judicial ethics prohibit them from commenting on any Supreme Court decisions.
That’s garbage, and they know it. And it would certainly come as a surprise to the current members of the Supreme Court. Before Neil Gorsuch, the future justices made no effort whatsoever to avoid expressing an opinion about the correctness of Brown at their confirmation hearings. After all, why would they? And even Gorsuch ultimately agreed.
I think Brown v. Board of Education was right when it was decided, and I think it would have been right if it had been decided 80 years before. I think Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong on the day it was decided.
I am being nominated to the Court that decided Brown … When the President made the announcement that I would be nominated to the Supreme Court…That is certainly one of the cases—even before I knew all of the legal ramifications, it is one that changed my life and changed the South, and, of course, even though I did not go to desegregated schools until I was virtually an adult.
But let me try to respond to your question about Brown (1954), about moving ahead of society and at what level. First, recall that Brown wasn’t born in a day. Thurgood Marshall came to the Court showing that facilities or opportunities were not equal, in case after case, in notable 1948 and 1950 higher education cases, particularly: McLaurin (1950), Sweatt v. Painter (1950), Sipuel (1948), a line started even earlier, in 1938, in Gaines. He set the building blocks, until it became obvious that separate couldn’t be equal.
Something else had happened. One of the influences on Brown, I think, was a war we had just come through, in which people were exterminated on the basis of what other people called their race. And I don’t think that apartheid in the United States could long outlive the Holocaust. From that perspective, the Court was not moving ahead of most of the people. There was resistance, of course, indeed massive resistance in some parts of the country.
But Brown itself, even Brown didn’t command an end to all racial segregation. The end came years later. Brown was decided in 1954. It wasn’t until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that the Court took the final step in the series by declaring a miscegenation law unconstitutional.
As I think of the Fourteenth Amendment, to speak generally, the Fourteenth Amendment perfected a Constitution that before it lacked something very important, and that something was a promise of basic fairness. That promise of basic fairness was not carried out, even though it was in the Constitution, for many, many years. And ever since Brown, the country in all of its branches of government has been trying to make real that promise of fairness.
After that promise was made in the Fourteenth Amendment, decades went by before people tried to keep the promise. With Brown—and it is a legal reason, as well as a moral, practical and every other reason—the country decided we will try to keep our promise.
Senator Kennedy: Do you agree with the Court’s conclusion that the segregation of children in public school solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional?
Senator Kennedy: And do you believe that the Court had the power to address segregation of public schools on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?
Senator Kennedy: Judge Roberts, do you agree that the Court was correct in basing its decision on real world consideration of the role of public education at the time of its decision, rather than the role of public education in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?
Senator Durbin: I would ask you at this point—you obviously support Brown v. Board of Education, do you, and the finding of the Court in that?
Senator Durbin: Do you believe that the Constitution protects the right of children in America to be educated in schools that are not segregated?
Judge Alito: Absolutely, Senator. That was one of the greatest, if not the single greatest thing that the Supreme Court of the United States has ever done.
Brown v. Board of Education has often been described as a radical change by some, and the public perceives it as a radical change. When you actually look at its history, you realize there had been jurisprudence for over 20 years by the court striking down certain—certain schemes that provided ‘‘separate but equal,’’ but in fact didn’t achieve their stated goal.
And so there was underpinnings in Brown v. Board of Education that, in those precedents that came before Brown that obviously gave the court some cause, some reason to re-think this issue of ‘‘separate but equal.’’ They also had before them the—probably one of the most famous dissents in American history, which was the dissent by Justice Harlan in Plessy.
And Justice Harlan so carefully laid out what the Constitution said, what the principles of the Constitution were that motivated the—the Congress to pass those amendments. He laid out the court’s precedents in that area and he said, separate but equal is just not consistent with the Constitution.
And eventually the law will catch up [with what’s right]. And eventually the law did catch up in Brown v. Board of Education.
So for nominees of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, the question was a no-brainer: Of course they believed Brown was rightly decided!
Senator Blumenthal: Let me ask you. Did you agree or do — I’m sorry, do you agree with the result in Brown v. Board of Education?
Senator Blumenthal: …you agree with the result in Brown v. Board?
Senator Blumenthal: You agree with it?
Judge Gorsuch: Senator, is a correct application of the law of precedent.
Senator Blumenthal: Would you agree with Judge Roberts?
Judge Gorsuch: Senator, there’s no — there’s — there’s no daylight, here.
Judge Gorsuch: Justice Marshall — sorry, Justice Harlan got the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause right the first time. And the court recognized that belatedly. It’s one of the great stains on the Supreme Court’s history that it took it so long to get to that decision.
Is the Trump administration coaching its nominees on how to obfuscate on a question whose answer had until now always been obvious? If so, why?
Another of President Trump’s lower court nominees may have given us the answer at his hearing in early April. John Nalbandian, nominee for the Sixth Circuit, expressed his agreement with Brown. But when asked about other cases, such as Roe v. Wade, he refused to express an opinion, prompting Democratic senators to ask why he felt expressing an opinion on one Supreme Court precedent was fine, but expressing an opinion on another Supreme Court precedent was somehow unethical.
So this runaround on Brown we’re seeing from Trump nominees may indeed reflect a departure from the national consensus around that case. But it may also be a reflection of just how far they are willing to depart from that consensus in order to hide their plans to use the federal bench to impose their political beliefs against women’s reproductive freedoms and other fundamental rights through lifetime judicial appointments.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
T. A. Green, for plaintiffs in error.
A. T. Britton, J. H. McGowan, and Walter H. Smith, for defendant in error.
This was an action by the St. Louis Smelting & Refining Company, a corporation created under the laws of Missouri, against Steel and others, to recover the possession of certain real property in the city of Leadville, Colorado. It was commenced in one of the courts of the state, and on motion of the defendants was removed to the circuit court of the United States. The complaint is in the usual form in actions for the recovery of land, according to the practice prevailing in Colorado. It alleges that the plaintiff was duly incorporated, with power to purchase and hold real estate; that it is the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of the premises mentioned, which are described, and that the defendants wrongfully withhold them from the plaintiff to its damage of $1,000. The plaintiff, therefore, prays judgment for the possession of the premises and for the damages mentioned. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint, which appears to have been amended several times, the questions presented for our consideration having arisen upon the demurrer to the third amended answer. That answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and set up several special defenses, and a counter-claim for the value of the improvements put on the premises. The plaintiff demurred to these defenses and to the counter-claim. The demurrer was sustained to the defenses and overruled to the counter-claim. The defendants elected to stand on their defenses, and final judgment was accordingly entered on the demurrer for the plaintiff for the possession of the premises. To review this judgment the case is brought by the defendants to this court. The amended answer averred that the defendants were the owners of the land in controversy 'by superiority of possessory title and priority of actual possession' of the premises as part of a town-site on the public domain of the United States, located and occupied since June, 1860; that the title of the plaintiff was derived from one Thomas Starr, to whom a patent was issued by the United States, bearing date on the twenty-ninth of March, 1879, embracing the premises in controversy; and the special defenses set up were that the patent was void; that fraud, bribery, perjury, and subornation of perjury were used to obtain it; and that Starr, the patentee, was estopped by his conduct from asserting title to the premises. The patent, which is subsequently stated to be a mineral patent, by which is meant that it was issued upon a claim for mineral land, is averred to be void on these grounds: that the* land which it embraces was part of the town-site of Leadville when the claim originated, and was thus reserved from sale by the laws of congress; that the land included in the town-site was neither mineral nor agricultural; and that the patentee, Starr, was not a citizen of the United States and had not declared his intention to become one when the patent was issued. These grounds are accompanied with a detail of the facts upon which they are founded, but they are sufficiently stated for the disposition of the questions arising upon them.
Land embraced within a town-site on the public domain, when unoccupied, is not exempt from location and sale for mining purposes; its exemption is only from settlement and sale under the pre-emption laws of the United States. Some of the most valuable mines in the country are within the limits of incorporated cities, which have grown up on what was, on its first settlement, part of the public domain; and many of such mines were located and patented after a regular municipal government had been established. Such is the case with some of the famous mines of Virginia City, in Nevada. Indeed, the discovery of a rich mine in any quarter is usually followed by a large settlement in its immediate neighborhood, and the consequent organization of some form of local government for the protection of its members. Exploration in the vicinity for other mines is pushed in such case by new-comers with vigor, and is often rewarded with the discovery of valuable claims. To such claims, thougs within the limits of what may be termed the site of the settlement or new town, the miner acquires as good a right as though his discovery was in a wilderness, removed from all settlements, and he is equally entitled to a patent for them. It is the policy of the country to encourage the development of its mineral resources. The act of July 26, 1866, declared that all mineral deposits on lands belonging to the United States were free and open to exploration, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase by citizens of the United States and those who had declared their intention to become such, subject to regulations prescribed by law, and to the rules and customs of miners in their several mining districts, so far as the same were applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. This declaration of the freedom of mining lands to exploration and occupation was repeated in the act of congress of May 10, 1872, and is contained in the Revised Statutes. Section 2319. Both acts provided for the acquisition of title, by patent, to mineral lands—the first act, to such as constituted lode claims; the second, to such as constituted placer claims.
The acts of congress relating to town-sites recognize the possession of mining claims within their limits, and forbid the acquisition of any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper within them under proceedings by which title to other lands there situated is secured, thus leaving the mineral deposits within town-sites open to exploration, and the land in which they are found to occupation and purchase, in the same manner as such deposits are elsewhere explored and possessed, and the lands containing them are acquired. Rev. St. §§ 2386, 2392.
Whenever, therefore, mines are found in lands belonging to the United States, whether within or without town-sites, they may be claimed and worked, provided existing rights of others, from prior occupation, are not interfered with. Whether there are rights thus interfered with, which should preclude the location of the miner and the issue of a patent to him or his successor in interest, is, when not subjected under the law of congress to the local tribunals, a matter properly cognizable by the land department, when application is made to it for a patent; and the inquiry thus presented must necessarily involve a consideration of the character of the land to which title is sought, whether it be mineral, for which a patent may issue, or agricultural, for which a patent should be withheld, and also as to the citizenship of the applicant.
We have so often had occasion to speak of the land department, the object of its creation and the powers it possesses in the alienation by patent of portions of the public lands, that it creates an unpleasant surprise to find that counsel, in discussing the effect to be given to the action of that department, overlook our decisions on the subject. That department, as we have repeatedly said, was established to supervise the various proceedings whereby a conveyance of the title from the United States to portions of the public domain is obtained, and to see that the requirements of different acts of congress are fully complied with. Necessarily, therefore, it must consider and pass upon the qualifications of the applicant, the acts he has performed to secure the title, the nature of the land, and whether it is of the class which is open to sale. Its judgment upon these matters is that of a special tribunal and is unassailable except by direct proceedings for its annulment or limitation. Such has been the uniform language of this court in repeated decisions.
In Johnson v. Towsley the effect of the action of that department was the subject of special consideration. And the court applied the general doctrine 'that when the law has confided to a special tribunal the authority to hear and determine certain matters arising in the course of its duties, the decision of that tribunal, within the scope of its authority, is conclusive upon all others,' and said, speaking by Mr. Justice MILLER, 'that the action of the land-office in issuing a patent for any of the public land, subject to sale by pre-emption or otherwise, is conclusive of the legal title, must be admitted under the principle above stated; and in all courts, and in all forms of judicial proceedings, where this title must control, either by reason of the limited powers of the court, or the essential character of the proceeding, no inquiry can be permitted into the circumstance under which it was obtained.' 13 Wall. 83, 84.
'We are of opinion that, in this action at law, it would be a departure from sound principle, and contrary to well-considered judgments in this court, and in others of high authority, to permit the validity of the patent to the state to be subjected to the test of the verdict of a jury on such oral testimony as might be brought before it. It would be submitting the jury, or the court sitting as a jury, for the tribunal which congress had provided to determine the question, and would be making a patent of the United States a cheap and unstable reliance as a title for lands which it purported to convey.' 93 U. S. 172.
'It would lead to endless litigation, and be fruitful of evil, if a supervisory power were vested in the courts over the action of the numerous officers of the land department, on mere questions of fact presented for their determination. It is only when those officers have misconstrued the law applicable to the case, as established before the department, and thus have denied to parties rights which, upon a correct construction, would have been conceded to them, or where misrepresentations and fraud have been practiced necessarily affecting their judgment, that the courts can, in a proper proceeding, interfere and refuse to give effect to their action. On this subject we have repeatedly, and with emphasis, expressed our opinion, and the matter should be deemed settled.' 104 U. S. 426. See, also, Vance v. Burbank, 101 U. S. 514.
It is among the elementary principles of the law that in actions of ejectment the legal title must prevail. The patent of the United States passes that title. Whoever holds it must recover against those who have only unrealized hopes to obtain it, or claims which it is the exclusive province of a court of equity to enforce. However great these may be they constitute no defense in an action at law based upon the patent. That instrument must first be got out of the way, or its enforcement enjoined, before others having mere equitable rights can gain or hold possession of the lands it covers. This is so well established, so completely imbedded in the law of ejectment, that no one ought to be misled by any argument to the contrary.
It need hardly be said that we are here speaking of a patent issued in a case where the land department had jurisdiction to act, the lands forming part of the public domain, and the law having provided for their sale. If they never were the property of the United States, or if no legislation authorized their sale, or if they had been previously disposed of or reserved from sale, the patent would be inoperative to pass the title, and objection to it could be taken on these grounds at any time and in any form of action. In that respect the patent would be like the deed of an individual, which would be inoperative if he never owned the property, or had previously conveyed it, or had dedicated it to uses which precluded its sale. And, of course, in both cases it is always open to show that the instrument was never executed by the parties whose signatures are attached to it, but is a simulated document. Where ejectment is founded upon either of these instruments,—the patent of the government or the deed of an individual,—the question being which of the parties has the legal title, it is irrelevant to introduce evidence to show that one of them ought to have had it, and might be able to get it, by a proceeding in some other tribunal or in some other form of action.
As to the allegations that fraud, bribery, perjury, and subornation of perjury, were used to obtain the patent to Starr, only a few words need be said. The bribery and subornation of perjury are alleged to have been committed by him in inducing parties to make false affidavits respecting the claim patented to be laid before the land department; and the perjury alleged consisted in his own affidavit as to his citizenship, the possession and working, by himself or grantors, of the claim for which the patent was issued, and the absence of a town-site, embracing the land, and of improvements thereon. The fraud alleged is not a specific charge by itself, but is made in connection with the affidavit of the patentee and his procurement of the false affidavits of others. The charges amount to this: that false and perjured testimony was used to influence the officers of the land department. There is no allegation of improper conduct on the part of those officers. The answer to this ground of defense is that it is not admissible in an action at law. The validity of a patent of the government cannot be assailed collaterally because false and perjured testimony may have been used to secure it, any more than a judgment of a court of justice can be assailed collaterally on like ground. If a judgment has been obtained by such means, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to apply for a new trial, or take an appeal to a higher court; and if the testimony was accompanied with acts which prevented him from presenting to the court the merits of his case, or by which the jurisdiction of the court was imposed upon, he may also institute some direct proceeding to reach the judgment. U. S. v. Flint, 4 Sawy. 42; U. S. v. Throckmorton, 95 U. S. 61; Vance v. Burbank, 10 U. S. 514. Until set aside or enjoined it must, of course, stand against a collateral attack with the efficacy attending judgments founded upon unimpeachable evidence. So with a patent for land of the United States, which is the result of the judgment upon the right of the patentee by that department of the government, to which the alienation of the public lands is confided, the remedy of the aggrieved party must be sought by him in a court of equity, if he possess such an equitable right to the premises as would give him the title if the patent were out of the way. If he occupy with respect to the land no such position as this, he can only apply to the officers of the government to take measures in its name to vacate the patent or limit its operation. It cannot be vacated or limited in proceedings where it comes collaterally in question. It cannot be vacated or limited by the officers themselves; their power over the land is ended when the patent is issued and placed on the records of the department. This can can be accomplished only by regular judicial proceedings, taken in the name of the government for that special purpose.
'It is this unassailable character (of the patent) which gives to it its chief, indeed, its only value, as a means of quieting its possessor in the enjoyment of the lands it embraces. If intruders upon them could compel him, in every suit for possession, to establish the validity of the action of the land department and the correctness of its ruling upon matters submitted to it, the patent, instead of being a means of peace and security, would subject his rights to constant and ruinous litigation. He would recover one portion of his land if the jury were satisfied that the evidence produced justified the action of that department, and lose another portion, the title whereto rests upon the same facts, because another jury came to a different conclusion. So his rights in different suits upon the same patent would be determined, not by its efficacy as a conveyance of the government, but according to the fluctuating prejudices of different jurymen, or their varying capacities to weigh evidence.' 104 U. S. 641.
It remains to notice the defense of estoppel. The answer of the defendants alleges that Starr, the patentee, was living in Leadville from 1860 until the patent was issued to him in 1879, and was cognizant of the improvements made and of the large sums of money expended on the premises; that he and his grantors fraudulently remained quiet in respect to their ownership of mining claims there, and, from August, 1870, to the time of their application for a patent, never made known, either to the city of Leadville or to the defendants, that he or they claimed a right to any portion of the land; that other parties who made similar claims, and united with him in securing the the patent, also stood by and remained quiet; that the defendants expended the sum of $5,000 in making improvements on the premises in controversy under the claim that they constituted part of a town-site on the public domain; that there was no mining on the land, and that no notice was given that would lead the defendants to suppose that there had been any mineral location made by him and his associates; that Starr published the notice of his application for a patent only in a weekly paper of Leadville, and that the description of the consolidated claim was so defective that only a skilled engineer could tell where the land was situated; and that after the defendants discovered that the notice of the patent embraced lands in the city they were assured that they should not be disturbed in their possessions, and that only a nominal sum would be demanded from them, not exceeding $25 a lot, and that, relying upon said assurance, the defendants continued making improvements.
These allegations are very far from establishing such an equity in the defendants as to estop the patentee and those claiming under him from asserting the legal title to the premises. These matters could not operate to estop the government in any disposition of the land it might choose to make. Its power of alienation could not be affected until the defendants had performed all the acts required by law to acquire a vested interest in the land, and it is not pretended that they took any steps to secure such an interest. Whatever right, therefore, the government possessed to use or dispose of the property, freed from any claim of the defendants, it could pass to its grantee.
The principle invoked is that one should be estopped from asserting a right to property upon which he has, by his conduct, misled another, who supposed himself to be the owner, to make expenditures. It is often applied where one owning an estate stands by and sees another erect improvements on it in the belief that he has the title or an interest in it, and does not interfere to prevent the work or inform the party of his own title. There is in such conduct a manifest intention to deceive, or such gross negligence as to amount to constructive fraud. The owner, therefore, in such a case will not be permitted afterwards to assert his title and recover the property, at least without making compensation for the improvements. But this salutary principle cannot be invoked by one who, at the time the improvements were made, was acquainted with the true character of his own title, or with the fact that he had none. Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co. 93 U. S. 327; Henshaw v. Bissell, 18 Wall. 271. It will not be pretended that the defendants did not understand all about the title to the land; they knew that it was vested in the United States. And we must presume that the patentee gave notice of his purpose to acquire it—such as the law required. The mode and manner of obtaining a patent for mining lands are minutely prescribed by the acts of congress. Among other things the applicant must file his application under them, in the proper land-offie, showing a compliance with the laws, together with a plat and the fieldnotes of his claim or claims in common, made by or under the direction of the surveyor general of the United States, showing their boundaries, and he must, also, and previously to the filing of the application, post a copy of the plat, with a notice of his intended application, in a conspicuous place on the land. It is conclusion, from the issuing of the patent, that this requirement was complied with, and, therefore, it cannot be said here that the patentee did not give notice of his purpose. This notice, as justly observed by the court below, was of itself a warning to all who were upon the land and were about to erect improvements upon it that the patentee was applying for a patent, and thus seeking to obtain the title. And the answer admits that the defendants did ascertain the fact of the application, for they aver a subsequent promise of the applicant to give them a title when the patent was acquired. Under these circumstances the alleged estoppel, like the other matters urged to defeat the action, must fail. it be maintained that the right fraud, perjury, and subornation of perjury, alleged as a defense, are to be taken as true, for the purpose of this decision, they are not to be taken as true for any other purpose. What we decide is that, if true, they are not available in this form of action, and that any relief against the patent founded upon them must be sought in another way and by a direct proceeding.
We have thus considered the propositions of law presented by the record, and the matters urged by counsel in his argument, so far as we have deemed them entitled to notice. They disclose nothing which would justify interference with the action of the court below. Its judgment, therefore, is affirmed.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Under the new law, PRC embassies, consulates, and other visa-issuing agencies outside of Mainland China (e.g., Chinese Visa Application Service Centers) are responsible for issuing visas (签证). (EEAL, art. 4). In narrow circumstances (e.g., emergencies) the public security bureau (PSB) at a port of entry (e.g., airport) can issue a single-entry visa valid for not more than 30 days (EEAL, art. 20).
Also, the exit-entry office of the public security bureau (PSB) can issue visas to extend one’s stay (EEAL, art. 29; State Council regs, art. 12) or change the purpose of stay (State Council regs, art. 10) in Mainland China. “Reasonable and sufficient” grounds must exist for seeking the new visa. (EEAL, art. 29).
Residence Permits: The PSB exit-entry office issues residence permits (居留证件) to foreign nationals seeking to reside in China. Applicants abroad for J1, Q1, R, S1, X1, and Z visas intend to enter China for purposes of taking up residence. They must apply to the PSB for residence permits within 30 days of entry. (EEAL, art. 30; State Council regs, art. 9). Once issued, a residence permit can be used to enter China instead of a visa. (EEAL, art. 22).
Persons transiting through Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Chengdu within 72 hours.
Persons ordered deported or otherwise required by to depart will be issued stay certificates authorizing their exit.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a bilingual Notice on Handling PRC Visa Applications (申请办理中华人民共和国签证须知) spelling out China’s new visa classifications. They are listed below. See our related article for further details.
1. Residence permits for employment, issued to foreigners who will work in China. A person entering on a Z (work) or R (talent) visa would apply for this type.
2. Residence permits for study, issued to foreigners who will study in China. A person entering on an X1 (student) visa would apply for this type.
3. Residence permits for journalists, issued to foreign journalists who reside in China on behalf of permanent offices of foreign news agencies. A person entering on a J1 (journalist) visa would apply for this type.
4. Residence permits for family reunion, issued to persons seeking to reside in China with Chinese citizen or permanent resident relatives, or who need to live in China for foster care. A person entering on a Q1 visa would apply for this type.
5. Residence permits for private affairs, issued to certain relatives of foreign nationals holding residence certificates for purposes of employment, study, etc. These permits are also issued to foreigners who need to reside in China to deal with other private affairs. A person entering on an S1 visa would apply for this type.
* For a person granted an extension of stay, the cumulative time of all extensions should not exceed the originally allotted period of stay as shown on the visa. (EEAL, art. 29). For a person granted a new visa classification, the cumulative period of stay since the date of the current entry should not exceed one year. (Beijing provisional rules).
Visa applicants: Under prior rules, foreigners coming to China for residence one year or longer should, when applying for visas at the Chinese embassy or other visa issuing agency abroad, get a medical exam. (2010 Implementing Rules, art. 6). Under the new regulations, this is no longer a requirement.
Employment license applicants: Rules require a health certificate as part of the application for an employment license. (1996 regs on the Employment of Foreigners, art. 11).
The new State Council regulations require a health certificate for anybody applying for a residence permit valid for one year or more.
The new regulations don’t adopt a provision in the draft regulations (art. 22) that would have exempted minors under age 16 from the medical exam. However, local rules may have the same result. For example, Beijing doesn’t require a medical exam from applicants under age 18.
As in the past, the exam is valid for 6 months (State Council regs, art. 16), so it may be possible to use the same certificate as used for the employment license. The regulations don’t require a medical from applicants extending a residence permit, changing from one type of residence permit to another, or replacing a residence permit. (State Council regs, art. 17).
Existing rules require that Z visas be reserved for positions for which the employer has a “special need” and that is currently a “shortage” occupation in China. (1996 regs on the Employment of Foreigners, art. 6). These rules are fairly vague and unevenly enforced. Under the new law, various departments should cooperatively formulate and periodically adjust a guidance list regarding special need / shortage occupations. The list should be based on economic and social development needs, as well as the supply of and demand for human resources. (Art. 42). No such list has been published yet. It remains to be seen how the new law will be interpreted and enforced.
As mentioned above, R visas will be issued to foreign high-level talents that China needs and to specialized talents that are urgently needed due to short supply. (State Council regs, arts. 6(9), 7(9)). The draft State Council regulations would have required that a provincial level department or higher make the determination that a foreigner qualifies (art. 9(9)), but that requirement was deleted from the final regulations. Before R visas can be issued, further rules will need to be issued–probably by the State Administration for Foreign Expert Affairs–to define their requirements and procedures. In the meantime, foreign experts will continue to apply for Z work visas under current rules.

matches:
art. 4
art. 20
art. 29
art. 12
art. 10
art. 29
art. 30
art. 9
art. 22
art. 29
art. 6
art. 11
art. 16
art. 17
art. 6