User:RevelationDirect/Sandbox

= Article Ideas = * National Register of Historic Places listings in Sedgwick County, Kansas: J. Arch Butts Packard Building], [[Eagle's Lodge, Fresh Air Baby Camp, International Harvester Building, S. H. Kress Company Building, Luling's City Laundry, Mentholatum Company Building, Rock Island Depot, Western Union Building, Westside IOOF Lodge * National Register of Historic Places listings in Wyandotte County, Kansas: Kansas City, Kansas YMCA Building
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Limestone County, Texas emancipation proclamation
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Matagorda County, Texas USO
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in McLennan County, Texas Dr. Pepper Museum building
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Nacogdoches County, Texas land office building
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Potter County, Texas firestone
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Hunt County, Texas masonic lodge, no pic

= Colonial Sugars Historic District (Very Rough Draft)=

The Cinclare Sugar Mill Historic District is a historic industrial and residential complex on the former Marengo Plantation in unincorporated West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The district is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River between Brusly and Port Allen and across from Baton Rouge. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998.

Architecture
The historic district consists of 46 buildings and two structures. The manufacturing portion of the district contains both structures: a smokestack reading "CINCLARE" and a water tower. The nineteenth-century mule barn is believed to be the last in Louisiana. The sugar industry used to rely heavily on mules for power in mills, but similar structures were typically demolished after the introduction of tractors.

The complex also contained a company town for year-round employees. The oldest structures is a circa 1855 plantation house in the Greek Revival style. There is a nearby row of manager houses. There are also several worker cottages built in 1913 from Sears Roebuck & Company kit houses and earlier worker housing built in the traditional Creole cottage style. A dormitory for seasonal works has since been demolished.

History
In the Antebellum era, the Marengo Plantation was established from multiple parcels in 1855 as a forced-labor operation, and like most of the sugar plantations in the area, had it's own mule-driven sugar kiln. After the Civil War John H. Laws from Cincinnati, Ohio bought the facility in 1878. He renamed it "Cinclare" and began to invest in expanding and automating the industrial facility at a time of consolidation in the sugar industry.

In the early twentieth century, the facility serviced a company town complete with company scrip and a plantation store. In 1914, Langdon Laws, who was also a director of the Texas and Pacific Railroad, had a spur line built to the mill. Seasonal workers would augment the year-round staff during the fall "cracking season".

In 2005, the Harry L. Laws & Company announced that the sugar mill would close but the company would continue to send sugar grown in West Baton Rouge Parish to the mill at the Alma Plantation in Pointe Coupee Parish. The company continues to own 13,000 acres of agricultural land, mostly devoted to sugarcane, throughout West Baton Rouge, Iberville and St. Martin parishes.

In 2013, the 210-foot-tall smokestack was repaired and repainted. It was originally built around 1950 for what was then named the Cinclare Central Factory. In 2018, the company won an award for restoring the vacation home of the Laws family that was built in 1906. The company continues to own the facility, rents out the housing, and is considering building a planned community. The West Baton Rouge Museum received donated machinery from Cinclare which it has incorporated into exhibits since it was the last sugar mill in the parish.

Architecture
The house is a large galleried cottage that is transitional between Greek Revival and Italianate architecture. It also blends traditional French and English floor plans.

The second story is a garret with an open room at the top of the stairs with four bedrooms. The front and back of the house both have large dormers.

History
As part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, US government support for AIDS prevention was contingent on opposing prostitution starting in 2003. Pathfinder preferred to remain neutral so as not to alienate sex workers from their anti-HIV efforts so they sued in federal court with other non-profits. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the requirment violated the First Amendment's prohibition against compelled speech in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.

Services
Sphere Project

Business Council

Leadership
Julia V. Taft

Facts
The F. W. Woolworth Company maintained a headquarters and commercial domicile in New York state and operated stores nationwide with total sales of $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1976. This included several retail stores in Arizona with total sales of $17 million, or 0.5% of the national total. It also held four overseas divisions which provided $39.9 million in dividends:
 * F. W. Woolworth GmbH of Germany
 * F. W. Woolworth, S. A. de C. V. of Mexico
 * F. W. Woolworth, Ltd. of Canada
 * F. W. Woolworth Co., Ltd. of England (52.7% ownership)

Additionally, when any company with overseas divisions claims a foreign tax credit, they must include the original pre-tax income even though they never received that full amount. In other words, rather than just report net overseas profits, IRS rules require that the gross profit be listed as income with the overseas taxes as an expense. This difference between the lower amount that is actually received and the higher amount for IRS purposes is called the gross up. Woolworth reported $25.5 million in gross ups.

In 1965, New Mexico adopted a version of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act. The purpose of this form of state tax is that it allowed corporations to file a federal income tax form, and then easily calculate their liability to each state based on the percentage of sales, payroll and assets in that state. "Business" income is distributed amongst the states the company does business in while "nonbusiness" income is taxed by the state in which the company is based.

The state of New Mexico audited Woolworth's return for fiscal 1976 and determined that $401,518 was owed rather than $84,622 that had been paid. They concluded that the overseas dividends as well as the gross up were actually business income that New Mexico was owed. No consideration was given for the overseas taxes that offset the gross ups. The practical effect of this change, if adopted nationally, would be that more taxes would be paid to various states Woolworth's did business in but less to New York and that companies would be taxed for their overseas tax payments.

History
Woolworth's challenged the ruling within the state agency in New Mexico but was denied. Woolworth won their appeal before the New Mexico Court of Appeals which excluded both the overseas dividends and the gross ups but the state appealed and the ruling was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court who said both were subject to state tax. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Woolworth's appeal.

Opinion of the court
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion of the court.

"discrete business enterprise" (a) The linchpin of apportionability for state income taxation of an interstate enterprise is the "unitary-business principle." Appellant—as owner of all of the stock of three of its subsidiaries and a majority interest in the fourth—potentially has the authority to operate these companies as integrated divisions of a single unitary business. But the potential to operate a company as part of a unitary business is not dispositive when, as here, the dividend income from the subsidiaries in fact is derived from unrelated business activity of the subsidiaries, each of which operates a discrete business enterprise. ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 307 U.S. 458, 102 S.Ct. 3103, 73 L.Ed.2d 787; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U.S. 425, 100 S.Ct. 1223, 63 L.Ed.2d 510. P. 362.

Due Process Clause

The question is whether the Due Process Clause permits New Mexico to tax a portion of dividends that appellant F. W. Woolworth Co. received from foreign subsidiaries that do no business in New Mexico. We also must decide whether New Mexico may include within Woolworth's apportionable New Mexico income a sum, commonly known as "gross-up," that Woolworth calculated in order to claim a foreign tax credit on its federal income tax.

"For due process purposes, the income attributed to a State must be rationally related to values connected with the taxing State. This limitation is not satisfied merely because the nondomiciliary parent corporation derives some economic benefit from its ownership of stock in another corporation."

2. New Mexico's efforts to tax the "gross-up" income also contravenes the Due Process Clause. The "fictitious" gross-up figure is treated for federal foreign tax credit purposes as a dividend in the same manner as a dividend actually received by the domestic corporation from a foreign corporation. In this case the foreign tax credit arose from the taxation by foreign nations of appellant's foreign subsidiaries that had no unitary business relationship with New Mexico. pp. 372–373

As a matter of state law, the Court of Appeals excluded from apportionable New Mexico income Woolworth's receipt of the dividends at issue. The court stated that "there is no indication that the income from Woolworth's long-standing investments in its subsidiaries was used either in taxpayer's unitary domestic business or in its business conducted in New Mexico. . . ." Id., at 545, 624 P.2d, at 54. With respect to the gross-up issue, the Court of Appeals said that the State's "rigid insistence" on inclusion of this amount "is a refusal to recognize an obviously fictitious income figure, made artificial by the federal reporting requirements for a specific purpose. . . ." Id., at 543-544, 624 P.2d, at 52-53. The court said that " 'gross-up' in fact represents income to taxpayer's foreign subsidiaries that is paid out in taxes to foreign governments," id., at 544, 624 P.2d, at 53, and not income in fact to the parent. The court thus likewise excluded this sum from Woolworth's apportionable New Mexico income. 8

The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed over one dissent. 95 N.M. 519, 624 P.2d 28 (1981). On the question whether Woolworth's receipt of dividends from its subsidiaries constituted apportionable New Mexico income, the court observed that, "regrettably, it needs to be said that the State did a very poor job of inquiring into and developing the facts in this case." Id., at 524, 624 P.2d, at 33. The court nonetheless found substantial evidence to support the findings that the subsidiaries' dividend payments met the State's statutory test for inclusion in Woolworth's apportionable New Mexico income. On the constitutional issue, the court identified the "key question" after our decision in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U.S. 425, 100 S.Ct. 1223, 63 L.Ed.2d 510 (1980), as "whether those dividends were income earned in a unitary business." 95 N.M., at 528, 624 P.2d, at 37. The court stated:

Respecting the State's inclusion of Woolworth's federal gross-up figure as apportionable state income, the court "deemed it unnecessary to delve into all the intricacies of the federal laws and regulations," but found it sufficient "to say that, since Woolworth decided to use the gross-up option, the income taxes paid by Woolworth's foreign subsidiaries to foreign governments must be deemed to be received as dividends . . . ." Id., at 521-522, 624 P.2d, at 30-31. "Admittedly, the fictitious gross-up, which the state claims is 'business income' and which Woolworth deliberately acceded to, does not fit the ordinary definition of 'income' . . . ."

This case was argued in tandem with ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 3103, 73 L.Ed.2d 787 which also involved dividends and gains from foreign subsidiaries. We have reiterated today in ASARCO that " 'the "linchpin of apportionability" for state income taxation of an interstate enterprise is the "unitary-business principle." ' " 458 U.S., at 319, 102 S.Ct., at 3110, quoting Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U.S. 207, 223, 100 S.Ct. 2109, 2120, 65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980), in turn quoting Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, supra, at 439, 100 S.Ct., at 1232.


 * The State Supreme Court in important part analyzed this case under a different legal standard. After stating that the existence of a unitary business relationship was the "key question," the court proceeded to resolve this question largely by emphasizing the potentials of the relationship between Woolworth and its subsidiaries:

"The possession of large assets by subsidiaries is a business advantage of great value to the parent; 'it may give credit which will result in more economical business methods; it may give a standing which shall facilitate purchases; it may enable the corporation to enlarge the field of its activities and in many ways give it business standing and prestige.' Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 166 31 S.Ct. 342, 355, 55 L.Ed. 389 (1911)." 95 N.M., at 529, 624 P.2d, at 38.

This reliance on the Flint case was error. Flint upheld a federal excise tax levied on corporate income. 10 The States, of course, are subject to limitations on their taxation powers that do not apply to the Federal Government. As relevant here, "the income attributed to a State for tax purposes must be rationally related to 'values connected with the taxing State.' Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 390 U.S. 317, 325 88 S.Ct. 995, 1000, 19 L.Ed.2d 1201." Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267, 273, 98 S.Ct. 2340, 2344, 57 L.Ed.2d 197 (1978). The state court's reasoning would trivialize this due process limitation by holding it satisfied if the income in question "adds to the riches of the corporation . . . ." Wallace v. Hines, 253 U.S. 66, 70, 40 S.Ct. 435, 437, 64 L.Ed. 782 (1920). Income, from whatever source, always is a "business advantage" to a corporation. Our cases demand more. In particular, they specify that the proper inquiry looks to "the underlying unity or diversity of business enterprise," Mobil, supra, at 440, 100 S.Ct., at 1233, not to whether the nondomiciliary parent derives some economic benefit—as it virtually always will—from its ownership of stock in another corporation. See ASARCO, 458 U.S., at 325-329, 102 S.Ct., at 3114-3115. 11

B

In Mobil we emphasized, as relevant to the right of a State to tax dividends from foreign subsidiaries, the question whether "contributions to income of the subsidiaries resulted from functional integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale." 445 U.S., at 438, 100 S.Ct., at 1232. If such "factors of profitability" arising "from the operation of the business as a whole" exist and evidence the operation of a unitary business, a State can gain a justification for its tax consideration of value that has no other connection with that State. Ibid. We turn now to consider the extent, if any, to which these factors exist in this case.

There was little functional integration. Woolworth's subsidiaries engaged exclusively in the business of retailing—the purchase of wholesale goods for resale to final consumers. This type of business differs significantly from the "highly integrated business" of locating, processing, and marketing a resource (such as petroleum) that we previously have found to constitute a unitary business. Exxon, 447 U.S., at 224, 100 S.Ct., at 2120. See also id., at 226, 100 S.Ct., at 2121 (describing "a unitary stream of income, of which the income derived from internal transfers of raw materials from exploration and production to refining is a part"); Mobil, 445 U.S., at 428, 100 S.Ct., at 1227. Consistent with this distinction, the evidence in this case is that no phase of any subsidiary's business was integrated with the parent's. With respect to "who makes the decision for seeing to the merchandise, store site selection, advertising and accounting control," the undisputed testimony stated that "each subsidiary performs these functions autonomously and independently of the parent company." App. 12a. 12 "Each subsidiary has a complete accounting department and a financial staff." Id., at 14a. Each had its own outside counsel. App. to Juris. Statement 34a. It further appears that Woolworth engaged in no centralized purchasing, manufacturing, or warehousing of merchandise. 13 The parent had no central personnel training school for its foreign subsidiaries. Ibid. And each subsidiary was responsible for obtaining its own financing from sources other than the parent. 14 In sum, the record is persuasive that Woolworth's operations were not functionally integrated with its subsidiaries.

We now consider the extent to which there was centralization of management or achievement of other economies of scale. It appears that each subsidiary operated as a distinct business enterprise at the level of fulltime management. With one possible exception, 15 none of the subsidiaries' officers during the year in question was a current or former employee of the parent. Ibid. The testimony was that the subsidiaries "figure that their operations are independent, autonomous." App. 13a. Woolworth did not "rotate personnel or train personnel to operate stores in those countries. There is no exchange of personnel." Ibid. There was no "training program that is central to transmit the Woolworth idea of merchandising, such as it may be, to the foreign subsidiaries." Id., at 15a. The subsidiaries "proceed . . . with their own programs, either formal or informal. They develop their own managers and instruct them in their methods of operation." Ibid.

This management decentralization was reflected in the fact that each subsidiary possessed autonomy to determine its own policies respecting its primary activity—retailing. According to the hearing examiner:

"Each of the four subsidiaries are responsible for determining the size and location of retail stores, the market conditions in their own territory and the mix of items to be sold. The German subsidiary emphasizes soft goods such as dresses and coats. It sells no food. The English subsidiary operates restaurants in its stores and also operates supermarkets. Each subsidiary attempts to cater to local tastes and needs. The inventory of each subsidiary consists, in large part, of home country produced items. This purchase-at-home practice is consistent with the policy of the taxpayer. A number of inventory items are purchased from the Orient or other places but there is no evidence that the subsidiaries purchase, or are required to purchase, inventory items from any particular source." App. to Juris. Statement 33a-34a.

Importantly, the Department's hearing examiner found that Woolworth had "no department or section, as such, devoted to overseeing the foreign subsidiary operations." Id., at 34a. 16 Neither the parent corporation nor any of the subsidiaries consolidates its tax return with any of the other companies. App. 37a-38a. The tax manager for Woolworth stated that he did not review the subsidiaries' tax returns or consult with them on decisions affecting taxes. Id., at 14a. There was no "policy of the parent that all of the managers of all the operations get together periodically to discuss the overall Woolworth operations." Id., at 35a. 17

There were some managerial links. Woolworth maintained one or several common directors with some of the subsidiaries. 18 There also was irregular in-person 19 and "frequent" mail, telephone, and teletype communication between the upper echelons of management of the parent and the subsidiaries. 20 App. to Juris. Statement 34a. Decisions about major financial decisions, such as the amount of dividends to be paid by the subsidiaries and the creation of substantial debt, had to be approved by the parent. 21 Id., at 35a. Woolworth's published financial statements, such as its annual reports, were prepared on a consolidated basis. 22 Ibid.

We conclude, on the basis of undisputed facts, that the four subsidiaries in question are not a part of a unitary business under the principles articulated in Mobil and Exxon, and today reiterated in ASARCO. Except for the type of occasional oversight with respect to capital structure, major debt, and dividends—that any parent gives to an investment in a subsidiary, there is little or no integration of the business activities or centralization of the management of these five corporations. Woolworth has proved that its situation differs from that in Exxon, where the corporation's Coordination and Services Management office was found to provide for the asserted unitary business

"long-range planning for the company, maximization of overall company operations, development of financial policy and procedures, financing of corporate activities, maintenance of the accounting system, legal advice, public relations, labor relations, purchase and sale of raw crude oil and raw materials, and coordination between the refining and other operating functions 'so as to obtain an optimum short range operating program.' " 447 U.S., at 211, 100 S.Ct., at 2114.

In this case the parent company's operations are not interrelated with those of its subsidiaries so that one's "stable" operation is important to the other's "full utilization" of capacity. Id., at 218, 100 S.Ct., at 2117. See also id., at 225, 100 S.Ct., at 2121. The Woolworth parent did not provide "many essential corporate services" for the subsidiaries, and there was no "centralized purchasing office . . . whose obvious purpose was to increase overall corporate profits through bulk purchases and efficient allocation of supplies among retailers." Id., at 224, 100 S.Ct., at 2120. 23 And it was not the case that "sales were facilitated through the use of a uniform credit card system, uniform packaging, brand names, and promotional displays, all run from the national headquarters." Ibid. See also Mobil, 445 U.S., at 428, 435, 100 S.Ct., at 1227, 1230. 24

There is a critical distinction between a retail merchandising business as conducted by Woolworth and the type of multinational business—now so familiar—in which refined, processed, or manufactured products (or parts thereof) may be produced in one or more countries and marketed in various countries, often worldwide. 25 In operations of this character there is a flow of international trade, often an interchange of personnel, and substantial mutual interdependence. The uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that Woolworth's international retail business is not comparable. There is no flow of international business. Nor is there any integration or unitary operation in the sense in which our cases consistently have used these terms.

In Mobil, we recognized:

"All dividend income received by corporations operating in interstate commerce is not necessarily taxable in each State where that corporation does business. Where the business activities of the dividend payor have nothing to do with the activities of the recipient in the taxing State, due process considerations might well preclude apportionability, because there would be no underlying unitary business." Id., at 441-442, 100 S.Ct., at 1233-1234.

This is such a case. Each of the foreign subsidiaries at issue operates a "discrete business enterprise," Mobil, supra, at 439, 100 S.Ct., at 1232, with a notable absence of any "umbrella of centralized management and controlled interaction." Exxon, 447 U.S., at 224, 100 S.Ct., at 2120. New Mexico, in taxing a portion of dividends received from such enterprises, is attempting to reach "extraterritorial values," Mobil, supra, at 442, 100 S.Ct., at 1234, wholly unrelated to the business of the Woolworth stores in New Mexico. As a result, a "showing has been made that income unconnected with the unitary business has been used in the" levy of the New Mexico tax. Butler Bros. v. McColgan, 315 U.S. 501, 509, 62 S.Ct. 701, 705, 86 L.Ed. 991 (1942). We conclude that this tax does not bear the necessary relationship " 'to opportunities, benefits, or protection conferred or afforded by the taxing State. See Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 61 S.Ct. 246, 249, 85 L.Ed. 267.' " Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Missouri State Tax Comm'n, 390 U.S. 317, 325, n. 5, 88 S.Ct. 995, 1000, n. 5, 19 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1968), quoting Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 336 U.S. 169, 174, 69 S.Ct. 432, 434, 93 L.Ed. 585 (1949). New Mexico's tax thus fails to meet established due process standards.

III

We need not be detained by New Mexico's reaching out to tax "gross-up" amounts that even the Supreme Court of New Mexico recognized as "fictitious." 95 N.M., at 522, 624 P.2d, at 31. The gross-up computation is a figure that the Federal Government "deems" Woolworth to have received for purposes of part of Woolworth's federal foreign tax credit calculation. It "is treated for this purpose as a dividend in the same manner as a dividend actually received by the domestic corporation from a foreign corporation." H.R.Rep.No. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., A83 (1962). See also S.Rep.No. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 227 (1962). In this case the foreign tax credit arose from the taxation by foreign nations of Woolworth foreign subsidiaries that had no unitary business relationship with New Mexico. New Mexico's effort to tax this income "deemed received"—with respect to which New Mexico contributed nothing—also must be held to contravene the Due Process Clause. 26

Dissent
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the dissent because the Woolworth divisions were in the same line of business as the domestic division and were therefore not "unrelated". Also, communication with headquarters was frequent and, although given some level of autonomy, major decisions were cleared through headquarters.

Related case
This case was argued before the Supreme Court in tandem with Asarco v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n. In that case, Idaho was trying to tax Asarco for overseas dividends with no clear associaton to the state. The court blocked that effort using the same logic as in this case. Although both cases were argued together, ruled on by the same justice using similar language, and voted on by the justices in the same alignment, the cases were never officially combined.

History
Pusey and Jones Fogel Grip Fort Christina * Kalmar Nyckel

Harlan and Hollingsworth

Redevelopment
Iron Hill Brewery

Not all of the An outlet mall named the Shipyard Shops failed and was eventually converted into offices. ING Direct Barclays Bank EDis law firms

Museums

 * Delaware Center for the Contemporary Arts
 * Delaware Children's Museum: located in the former Kahunaville nightclub.
 * Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame: located within Frawley Stadium
 * Dupont Nature Center:
 * Kalmar Nyckel: a reproduction of the original Swedish Ship

Lighthouses

 * Bellevue Range Rear Light
 * Cherry Island Range Rear Light

Other

 * Daniel S. Frawley Stadium
 * Delaware Theatre Company
 * Riverfront Market

Events

 * 

Civitan International

 * Civitan International
 * The Claxton Bakery
 * Junior Civitan International
 * Dallas Civitan Open
 * Courtney Shropshire
 * Category:Schools with Junior Civitan

Improved Order of Red Men

 * List of museums in Texas
 * List of New York State Historic Markers in Albany County, New York
 * Red Men Hall (Reading, Pennsylvania)
 * Tammanies

East Berlin, PA
 * 

District (maybe)
 * 

another district ct
 * 

Walcott Building
 * 

General Store (maybe)
 * 

Clay County, Indiana Coal Company Store (added 1992 - Building - #86001121) Also known as Independent Order of Red Men Fraternal Lodge S. Harmony Rd., Harmony Historic Significance: Event, Architecture/Engineering Architect, builder, or engineer: Unknown Architectural Style: Other Area of Significance: Architecture, Commerce Period of Significance: 1875-1899, 1900-1924 Owner: Private Historic Function: Commerce/Trade Historic Sub-function: Specialty Store Current Function: Education, Social Current Sub-function: Clubhouse http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/in/Clay/state.html

Wash
 * 

Ohio Tecumseh Theatre
 * 

CT source
 * 

Optimists

 * Optimist Brain Bowl
 * Optimist International
 * Junior Optimist Octagon International
 * Parks in Windsor, Ontario

Lions Club International

 * Leader Dogs for the Blind
 * Choong Chin Liang
 * NEADS (Dogs for Deaf and Disabled Americans)
 * Hospital Radio Plymouth
 * Trust AM
 * Sonora Institute of Technology
 * South Shore Water Frolics
 * Indiana School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 * Boxing Day Dip
 * Walsall Hospital Radio

=Other=

Divisions
Divisions of the Caterpillar Tractor Company, now Caterpillar Inc.:

Template
RevelationDirect/Sandbox τ

Corporations

 * Category:Kodak
 * Template:Johnson & Johnson
 * Template:SCJohnson
 * Wal-Mart
 * Template:Procter & Gamble
 * Boeing
 * ExxonMobil

Verizon

 * Verizon Building
 * Verizon Center
 * Verizon Heritage pga
 * Verizon IMAX 3D theater inside Jordan's Furniture stores
 * Verizon Sports Complex
 * Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre
 * Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre (Irvine)
 * Verizon Wireless Music Center (Indiana)
 * Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre St. Louis
 * Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre Charlotte
 * Verizon Wireless Music Center - Birmingham
 * Verizon Wireless Virginia Beach Amphitheatre.
 * Verizon Wireless Arena
 * Verizon Arena
 * Verizon Wireless Center
 * Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
 * Verizon SmartPark
 * NYNEX Commemorative

Bell Telephone buildings and structures

 * Southern Bell Telephone Company Building
 * Bell Telephone Building (St. Louis, Missouri)
 * Bell Telephone Building (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

=DuPont=
 * Louviers, Colorado
 * Dupont, Colorado
 * Dupont, Florida
 * Dupont, Pennsylvania
 * Dupont, Georgia
 * Dupont Hospital, Indiana
 * Dupont, Indiana, named after family
 * Dupont, Louisiana, redirect
 * Dupont Circle, named after family member
 * Dupont, Louisiana, named after shells
 * Dupont Manual High School, named after family member with alumni cat
 * Dupont, Ohio
 * Fort Dupont, Washington, D.C., Dupont Park neighborhood named after
 * DuPont Plaza Hotel (Miami)
 * Dupont Plaza Hotel arson
 * duPont Registry
 * DuPont State Forest
 * Dupont (TTC)
 * Dupont, Wisconsin
 * DuPont-Whitehouse House

=Brandywine Museums and Gardens Alliance=

Member Organizations
Not Nemours
 * 

Category:Brandywine Museums & Gardens Alliance

=Delaware Children's Museum=

Cats
Category:Museums in Wilmington, Delaware Category:Museums established in 2010 Category:Wilmington Riverfront Category:Children's museums in the United States

Links

 * List of children's museums in the United States

=ACILS=

Programs
The Solidarity Center classifies its funding into the following program types:


 * Worker & Human Rights
 * Global Economy
 * Gender & Equality
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Safety & Health
 * Migration & Human Trafficking

General links

 * ned replaces CIA
 * promoting privatization
 * Reebok and American Center for International Labor Solidarity Partner in Labor Rights Training for Workers in Indonesia.
 * 
 * For more information iran

Criticism

 * Jeb Sprague, "The AFL-CIO's 'Solidarity Center' and Haiti", NarcoSphere, November 18, 2005.
 * national catholic reporter

The Solidarity Center's government funding faces criticism from multiple sides. Congressman Ron Paul sees the NED funding recipient as a "foreign policy loose cannon" that does not act in US interests. Conversely, critiques from within the AFL-CIO maintain that the funding gives the government too much control over the labor federation. The California AFL-CIO submitted a resolution to fund international programs only with union and member money to avoid appearing "to be an agent of the U.S. government and its foreign policies." This leads to accusations of hypocrisy since ACILS advocates for trade unions to be free of government control in other countries.
 * venezuala articles
 * hands off venezuala
 * new york times
 * An investigation by the State Department’s inspector general two years ago into the United States’ possible role in the coup determined that the work of the National Endowment for Democracy broke no U.S. laws. It also found there was no evidence the NED or the U.S. government did anything to encourage Chávez’s unconstitutional overthrow.
 * haiti involvement
 * Haiti coup
 * haiti, the labor notes article
 * boston glob anti-IRI haiti
 * Ben Davis - "head of the Solidarity Center’s operations in the Caribbean and Latin America during the February 2004 coup" in Haiti.

=Delaware Theatre Company=

McDonald's
Rock N Roll McDonald's McDonald's Cycle Center Hamburger University Kroc Center McDonald's USA First Store Museum McDonald's (Will Rogers Turnpike) Candler Building (New York, New York) McDonald's Sign (Pine Bluff, Arkansas) McDonald's Olympic Swim Stadium

Other Sodas
Mountain Dew Dr. Enuf

Dr Pepper Snapple
 * Dr. Pepper Syrup Plant
 * Poland Spring Bottling Plant and Spring House

= Japanese YWCA of San Francisco (Draft) =

The Japanese YWCA, now the Issei Women’s Building, is a historic building in downtown San Francisco. It was completed in XXXX and was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2020.

History
.

Woolworth
Lebanon College International Civil Rights Center and Museum Bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority

Kinney Shoe, Footquarters, Colorado and Basics shoe chains Kinney Shoes Moderna Shuh-Center GmbH, German shoes, sold to Andr Schuhland GmbH, a division of Andr Deutschland GmbH

Mall Specialty stores

Europe CB Diffusion (France) Faust (France) Freedom Sportsline

Rubin GmbH, costume jewelry & accessories sold to Bijou Brigitte modische Accessories AG in 1996
 * Woolworth GmbH, the owner of the Woolworths chain of high street shops in Germany and Austria (originally part of the F.W. Woolworth company, but separate since 1998, filing for bankruptcy April 2009) Retail Company of Germany, Inc., under Woolworths 1996

North America Accessory Lady, US sold 1996 Anderson-Little Athletic Fibers Best of Times Canary Island Canada, closed in 1993 eVenator W.H. Moore, C.S. Woolworth, F.M. Kirby, S.H. Knox, and E.P. Charlton. All were former partner-managers except for Earle Perry Charlton Footaction USA Footquarters Karuba Canada, closed in 1993 Kids Mart discount from Holtzman's Little Folk Shop, purchased in 1983 kids clothing kids full priced from Holtzman's Northern Elements family casual Northern Getaway family casual Northern Group (4 concepts) Northern Reflections clothing Canada spinoff, founded 1980s Northern Traditions family casual Randy River Canada casual mens Richman Brothers Company clothing, mens & Boys Rx Place : sold to Phar-Mor in 1995 Silk & Satin lingerie Canada by La Senza Inc., a subsidiary of Suzy Shier Limited 1996 Sporting Goods Stylco Susie Casual women’s clothing Team Edition Apparel Weekend Edition Canada casual women Weekend Edition Plus Woolworth Express drug. HBA downtown launched 1990, NYC
 * F. W. Woolworth Company, the original US-based chain of "five and dime" (5¢ and 10¢) stores

Oceana Williams the Shoeman (actually woolworths)

World Foot Locker (larger) Best of Times watches Northern Reflections, selling cold-weather outerwear. But he said he was also high on yet newer company chains like Going to the Game, selling sports memorabilia (40 stores currently); Best of Times, specializing in watches from $30 to $1,500 (30 stores), and Northern Traditions, a spinoff of Northern Reflections now operating in Canada that sells more formal clothes.

Architecture
Designed by company architect H. W. Stakes, the art deco building uses steel frame construction with a masonry curtain wall. The facade on the 2nd and 3rd stories displays alternating peach and cream vertical stripes of terra cotta tile with lotus motifs. The building has a grey medallion with a raised "W" on the chamfered corner on 9th and Market.

When a Woolworth's store, the interior had two sales floors, the current ground floor and the bargain basement. The escalators to the basement floor are still visible in the store.

In 1959, Woolworth added a third story which appeared in the original blue prints. BPG has plans to renovate the building's upper floors and to add an additional two stories to the building for use as apartments.

= Moose Lodge v. Irvis =

Moose Lodge v. Irvis,, was a United States Supreme Court case that considered whether a private club that receives a license from government becomes a "state actor" and is therefore subject to the Equal Protection Clause.

Background
The Moose Lodge is a fraternal club with a lodge in Marysville, Pennsylvania which served dinner and maintained a bar in their lodge. The national Moose organization required all lodges to admit only white men. Members could bring in friend as guests so long as they were also eligible for membership. The club was privately owned on privately owned land and did not advertise as open to the public.

In order to serve alcohol, the lodge held a liquor license from the [[Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. The state required that fraternal lodges follow all their organizational rules. Although liquor licenses were issued alsmost automatically, only so many licenses would be issued based on the population of the burough.

K. Leroy Irvis, who was African American, entered the Moose Lodge with a friend who was a member but was denied service at the bar. He then file suit in federal court against both the Moose and the Liquor Board. He asserted that, by granting the liquore license, the club's discrimination was a "state action" that was impermissable under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prior litigation
Suit was then filed in 1958 on Mr. Burton's behalf against the parking authority and the coffeehouse claiming the discrimination was state sanctioned by virtue of the landlord and the close relationship between the business and state agency. The lawsuit sought to either force the Eagle Coffee Shoppe to integrate their dining room or to terminate their lease.

The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that the government lease to a discriminating company was a violation of Burton's civil rights. However, the Delaware Supreme Court overruled that decision found that Eagle Coffee Shoppe's refusal to serve black clientele was legal due to a state law, 24 Del.C. § 1501, that allowed restaurants to refuse services if a person was disturbing other customers.

Redding then appealed to the federal courts on behalf of Burton.

Opinion of the Court
The majority opinion, written by Justice Tom Clark, looked closely at the specifics of the financing of the parking garage and the building plan's dependence on retail rental income to determine that the Eagle Coffee Shoppe was integral to the government purpose of building and financing a parking garage. Also, a close symbiosis was noted between retail businesses having nearby parking and a garage being close to shopping opportunities to the point where they were a "joint participant". Based on the close interplay between government and company, the court found that the exclusion of black customers was a violation even though no government agency was directly discriminating. "The exclusion of appellant under the circumstances shown to be present here was discriminatory state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Justice Potter Stewart concurred with the verdict but felt that, since no evidence had been submitted that Burton had bothered other customers, the Delaware law allowing restaurants to exclude customers was a pretense to allow racial discrimination and was therefore itself unconstitutional. Justice John Harlan II, joined by Charles Whittaker, found the State court ruling so ambiguous that they preferred to return the case to the lower court for clarification. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a separate dissent that also called for returning the case to the state court."

Legal consequences
The Burton case broadened the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to include not only direct government action, but also actions by private companies acting in close relationship to a government agency. The impact of the ruling was later limited in Moose Lodge v. Irvis to situations where the government support of the business was substantial before private discrimination could be considered a "state action".

Redirects

 * Moose Lodge No. 107

= Redlink Women's Club Buildings on the NRHP =

Candidates To Do

 * Gadsden statue
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Clubwomen
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Organizations
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Caddo Parish, Louisiana
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Northeast Philadelphia
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Ohio
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Seattle - DAR, Statue of George Washington (Seattle)
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles - 2
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Dayton, Ohio, 2 one no pix and one demoed
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Kern County, California no pic
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in King County, Washington- daugters, Kirkwood
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Lorain County, Ohio defining?
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Seneca County, Ohio - daughters
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Milwaukee
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco
 * National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Glacier_County,_Montana no pic
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Broward County, Florida 2, both with pics
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Mercer County, Kentucky daughters college, no pic
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in DeKalb County, Georgia
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Kern County, California
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Pima County, Arizona is this a clubhouse?
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis north and west of downtown
 * National Register of Historic Places listings in Jackson County, Missouri: Kansas City other

Nomination Form Search for Downloadable PDF

 * NRHP Database
 * WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources

= River Life Interpretive Center =

The River Life Interpretive Center is a museum in Skamokawa, Washington.

History
district funding

mills to casino

White The company town was annexed by Danville in 1951.

3 smokestacks

NewspaperThe survey will encompass 972 properties and city wanted to spur economic development The survey will encompass 972 properties and Schoolfield Cemetery. Schoolfield is significant as one of the largest textile mill villages in Virginia and the South, Dixon said. The village was founded as an independent company town in 1903 by Dan River Inc., which produced cloth for home and apparel from 1882 until 2006. The years 1903 to 1969 make up the historically significant period, which includes the construction of the 1967 regional headquarters building and the 1969 warehouse, Dixon pointed out. Many of the buildings were designed by the Boston-based Lockwood Greene engineering firm, Charlotte, North Carolina, urban planner Earle Draper and Virginia architect J. Bryant Heard, Dixon said.

Architecture
Schoolfield School Complex (1912-1940) Schoolfield Welfare Building (1917)

Gallery
 File:Schoolfield School Complex Building B.jpg|School Complex Schoolfield Welfare Building in Danville.jpg|Welfare Building 