OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Southern Railway Company v. United States (322 U.S. 72)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 72
Southern Railway Company v. United States (322 U.S. 72)
Argued: March 28, 29, 1944. --- Decided: April 24, 1944
Mr. Sidney S. Alderman, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 283)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 283
Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 283)
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 370)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 370
Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 370)
Messrs. Henry L. Walker, Arthur J. Dixon, James A. Bistline and R. Granville Curry, for appellants.
Messrs. John W. Adams, Jr., Charles P. Reynolds, R. B. Claytor, Martin A. Meyer, Jr., and Walter C. Scott, Jr., for appellees Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. and others.
Messrs. John S. Burchmore and Robert N. Burchmore, for appellee Cramet Inc.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 370)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 370
Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 370)
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 283)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 283
Southern Railway Company v. United States (355 U.S. 283)
Messrs. Henry L. Walker, Arthur J. Dixon, Henry J. Karison and R. Granville Curry, for appellants.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Messrs. Robert W. Ginnane and B. Franklin Taylor, Jr., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Messrs. J. P. Fishwich, R. B. Gwathmey, James W. Hoeland, W. L. Grubbs and Joseph L. Lenihan, for appellees Harlan County Coal Operators Association and others.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Railway Company v. Virginia ex rel. Shirley

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 190
Southern Railway Company v. Virginia ex rel. Shirley
Argued: Oct. 17-18, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of virginia.
Messrs. Sidney S. Alderman, of Washington, D.C., and Thomas B. Gay, of Richmond, Va., for appellant.
Messrs. J. F. Hall and Brockenbrough Lamb, both of Richmond, Va., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Southern Railway Company v. Walters

United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 190
Southern Railway Company v. Walters
Argued: Oct. 27, 28, 1931. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1931
Messrs. Bruce A. Campbell, of East St. Louis, Ill., and H. O'B. Cooper, S. R. Prince, and L. E. Jeffries, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles A. Lich, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Smith v. Allwright

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), was an important decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation.

## Separate Opinion

    Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
321 U.S. 649
Smith v. Allwright
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 51 Argued: January 12, 1944 --- Decided: April 3, 1944; amended June 12, 1944
1. The right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution, and this right of the citizen may not be abridged by the State on account of his race or color. P. 661.
2. Whether the exclusion of citizens from voting on account of their race or color has been effected by action of the State — rather than of individuals or of a political party — is a question upon which the decision of the courts of the State is not binding on the federal courts, but which the latter must determine for themselves. P. 662.
3. Upon examination of the statutes of Texas regulating primaries, held: that the exclusion of Negroes from voting in a Democratic primary to select nominees for a general election — although, by resolution of a state convention of the party, its membership was limited to white citizens — was State action in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. Grove v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45, overruled. Pp. 663, 666.
When, as here, primaries become a part of the machinery for choosing officials, state and federal, the same tests to determine [p650] the character of discrimination or abridgment should be applied to the primary as are applied to the general election. P. 664.
4. While not unmindful of the desirability of its adhering to former decisions of constitutional questions, this Court is not constrained to follow a previous decision which, upon reexamination, is believed erroneous, particularly one which involves the application of a constitutional principle, rather than an interpretation of the Constitution to evolve the principle itself. P. 665.
Certiorari, 319 U.S. 738, to review the affirmance of a judgment for the defendants in a suit for damages under 8 U.S.C. § 43.
# Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315

Supreme Court of the United States
441 U.S. 463
SMITH ET AL. v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1315, ET AL.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
No. 78-1223. --- Decided: Apr. 30, 1979

## Dissenting Opinion

    Marshall
Held: The Arkansas State Highway Commission's refusal to consider employee grievances when filed by the union rather than directly by an employee of the State Highway Department does not violate the First Amendment. Even assuming that the Commission's procedure would constitute an unfair labor practice if the Commission were subject to the same labor laws applicable to private employers and that its procedure tends to impair the effectiveness of the union in representing the economic interests of its members, nevertheless, this type of "impairment" is not one that the Constitution forbids, the Commission not having prohibited its employees from joining together in a union, from persuading others to do so, or from advocating any particular ideas.
Certiorari granted; 585 F.2d 876, reversed.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315/Dissent Marshall

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Marshall
Mr. Justice Marshall, dissenting.
Now this Court is deciding vital constitutional questions without even a plenary hearing. I dissent.
This Court has long held that the First Amendment protects the right of unions to secure legal representation for their members. Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Assn., 389 U.S. 217, 221–222 (1967); Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1, 8 (1964); see Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576 (1971); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961). Based on this precedent and on Arkansas' recognition of public employees' right to organize and join a union, Potts v. Hay, 229 Ark. 830, 315 S.W.2d 826 (1958), the Court of Appeals concluded that the First Amendment also encompasses respondent union's right to file grievances on behalf of its members. If under Mine Workers and Railroad Trainmen a public employer may not refuse to entertain a grievance submitted by a union-salaried attorney, it is not immediately [p467] apparent why the employer in this case should be entitled to reject a grievance asserted by the union itself.
I decline to join a summary reversal that so cavalierly disposes of substantial First Amendment issues.

## Notes

* ↑ Moreover, summary reversal seems to me an especially inappropriate means of resolving conflicts between the United States Courts of Appeals. Compare Arkansas State Highway Employees Local 1315 v. Smith, 585 F.2d 876 (CA8 1978), with Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F.2d 456 (CA7 1972).
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Smith v. Apple

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
264 U.S. 274
Smith v. Apple
Argued: Jan. 2, 1924. --- Decided: March 3, 1924
Messrs. John S. Dean, of Topeka, Kan., and Henry E. Asp, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Mr. Edward E. Sapp, of Galena, Kan., for appellee.
Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Sophocles, the Seven Plays in English verse

* related portals: Ancient Greek drama.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
one or more tragedies are available in a spoken word format.
Layout 2
SOPHOCLES
THE
SEVEN PLAYS IN ENGLISH VERSE
BY
LEWIS CAMPBELL, M.A. HON. LL.D., HON. D.LITT.
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS HON. FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD
NEW EDITION, REVISED
HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON, NEW YORK AND TORONTO
SOPHOCLES
Sophocles :
| Born at Colonus | probably 495 B.C. |
| Died | 406 B.C. |
The present translation was first published in ‘The World’s Classics’ in 1906.
Sie hören nicht die folgenden Geſänge, Die Seelen, denen ich die erſten ſang.
CONTENTS
The World’s Classics
CXVI
SOPHOCLES
THE SEVEN PLAYS IN ENGLISH VERSE
CAMPBELL
Oxford: Horace Hart
Printer to the University
SOPHOCLES
THE SEVEN PLAYS
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH VERSE
BY
LEWIS CAMPBELL
HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON, NEW YORK and TORONTO.
[Advertisements]
WORKS BY THE
REV. LEWIS CAMPBELL,
Hon. LL.D., Glasgow; Hon. D.Litt., Oxford,
Emeritus Professor of Greek in the University of St. Andrews.
I. WRITINGS.
1. Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Shakespeare. Smith, Elder & Co. 1904.
2. A Guide to Greek Tragedy. Rivingtons. 1891.
3. Religion in Greek Literature. Longmans. 1898.
4. Plato’s Republic, in Murray’s Home and School Library. 1902.
5. Life of James Clerk Maxwell (with W. Garnett). Macmillan (second edition). 1884.
6. Life of Benjamin Jowett (with E. Abbott). Murray. 1897.
7. The Christian Ideal (Sermons). Macmillan. 1877.
8. Nationalization of the Old English Universities. Chapman & Hall. 1900.
II. EDITIONS.
1. Plato’s Theaetetus. Clarendon Press (second edition). 1883.
2. Plato’s Sophistes and Politicus. Clarendon Press. 1867.
3. Plato’s Republic (with B. Jowett). Clarendon Press. 1894.
4. Sophocles, Plays and Fragments. Clarendon Press. 1879–81.
5. Sophocles, seven Plays in smaller edition (with E. Abbott). Clarendon Press. 1886.
6. Aeschylus, in Macmillan’s Parnassus Series. 1897.
7. Jowett’s Epistles of St. Paul. Third edition, abridged. Murray. 1895.
8. Jowett’s Theological Essays (Selected), with Introduction. Clarendon Press. 1906.
9. T. Campbell’s Poems (Selection), with Introduction, Golden Treasury Series. Macmillan. 1904.
10. Letters of B. Jowett (with E. Abbott). Murray. 1898.
III. TRANSLATIONS.
1. Aeschylus, in English Verse. Kegan Paul. 1900.
2. Sophocles, in English Verse. Murray. 1883.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Sophocles

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sophocles."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.

## Books

* Sophocles (1871), a book by Clifton Wilbraham Collins, part of the Ancient Classics for English Readers.
* Sophocles, Vol. I (1912), a collection of translations by Francis Storr, vol. L020 of the Loeb Classical Library.
* Sophocles, Vol. II (1919), a collection of translations by Francis Storr, vol. L021 of the Loeb Classical Library.

## Articles

* “Sophocles”, by Philip Smith in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1870.
* "Sophocles," by Paul Shorey in The New International Encyclopædia, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co. (1905)
* "Sophocles," in The Nuttall Encyclopædia, (ed.) by James Wood, London: Frederick Warne and Co., Ltd. (1907)
* "Sophocles," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911).
* "Sophocles," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
* "Sophocles," in The Encyclopedia Americana, New York: The Encyclopedia Americana Corporation (1920)
* "Sophocles," in Collier's New Encyclopedia, New York: P. F. Collier & Son Co. (1921)

## See also

* Sophocles (496 BCE–406 BCE), the ancient Athenian tragic playwright and his works.
# Sophist

is a Platonic dialogue from the philosopher's late period, most likely written in 360 BC. In it the interlocutors, led by Eleatic Stranger employ the method of division in order to classify and define the sophist and describe his essential attributes and differentia vis a vis the philosopher and statesman.
English-language translations of el:Σοφιστής include:
* The Sophista, trans. by Thomas Taylor (1804) (transcription project)
* The Sophist, trans. by George Burges (1850) (transcription project)
* The Sophistes, trans. by R. W. Mackay (1868) (transcription project)
* Sophist, trans. by Benjamin Jowett (1892)
* Sophist, trans. by F. M. Cornford (1915) (transcription project)
* Sophist, trans. by H. N. Fowler (1921) (transcription project)
# Solo/Chapter 15

George Paddon, Philippe Bloch, and Karl Zurschmiede stood in the garret behind the Gare Montparnasse, surveying a little heap of objects spread out on the bed: among them a yellow copy of the Liszt Sonata bearing an inscription, "V. W., Wien, 1876." They were looking for an address. Despite everything they had heard him say about his renunciations, they had the human urge to notify some one.
"There was a diary," said Paddon. "That may give us a hint."
Karl, more visibly affected than the others, had been silent. "The concierge burnt it," he interposed. "It was his last request."
They had another talk with the concierge.
"Had he no final message?" asked the Englishman.
"He said something we couldn't understand," she replied. "One word was 'belle.' It was just at midnight, for I remember the great clock outside was chiming the hour."
Only Paddon had an inkling. Bell, midnight. "Alors, il a du être——" he began, but quickly checked himself.
He had almost said, "Then he must have been English"—and although he experienced a guilty emotion of pride and proprietorship at the discovery, loyalty bade him withhold it. Bloch was eager to prove that the dead man had been a French Jew. Zurschmiede, whose mind was ​methodical, had already classified his origin as Germanic. Whereas all the poor devil had ever asked of anybody was that he be allowed to remain his own anomalous self.
The end
# Solo/Foreword

When the last t of your novel has been piously crossed, you experience a major bliss of authorship: the interval of intellectual torpor that succeeds the creative act. Months later, in a new mood, perhaps in a different land, you reread your story which has, in the interval, gone to school, graduated, and come home a book—with a jacket and a price. The experience is not unlike playing for the first time a piano transcription of a familiar symphony. It sounds thin; you miss a dozen orchestral colours, despite the exciting gain in clarity and the alien timbre.
Suddenly the thought comes to you: but the public may not suspect that it is symphonic! For them it will be a sonata—and an unwieldy one. And a major chagrin of authorship is that you can't sit on the arm of your reader's chair and score in for him the parts between the lines. In the heat of writing you had taken it for granted that he was hearing what you heard, for was he not merely thousands of yous! He, you assumed, knew your people beforehand; that they were "born on Sunday, christened on Monday, married on Tuesday" and so on to the Saturday burial, because long before your day writers of fiction had recorded all the possible externals. But in this new mood, as you read impersonally what you had so personally set down, you are no longer the composer, and you see how absurd it was to think of the public as thousands of yous, when it is only a thousandth of you, just as you are a thousandth of it.
​Whereupon another revelation comes to you: your story is "modern." That is only another way of saying that it has tacitly eliminated factors common to all the novels you had been brought up on—novels you had assumed your readers had been brought up on. Readers who have read many novels may catch factors in your story that you failed to "cancel out," and they will think you old-fashioned. Readers who have read few novels may not recognize your two-thirds as their four-sixths! They may consequently doubt your final product and think you over-modern. Readers who have read no novels to speak of may think you mad and your hero madder. They may not even be aware that "heroes" were cancelled out years ago and that death is not necessarily a tragedy. They may see darkness where you saw dawn, futility where you saw hope, despair where you saw transfiguration. And you can't hum in for them the subsidiary voices; the best you can do is to attempt a preface to the new edition, and you abhor prefaces.
P. C.
New York, 1924.
# Sphinx

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sphinx."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Sphinx", a poem by William Dean Howells
* The Sphinx, a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson
* The Sphinx by Edgar Allan Poe
* The Sphinx, a poem by Agnes Repplier
* The Sphinx, a poem by Oscar Wilde
# Spicer v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 430
Spicer v. Smith
Argued: Jan. 19, 20, 1933. --- Decided: March 13, 1933
Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt and Leo T. Wolford, both of Louisiville, Ky., for petitioner.
Mr. Jesse I. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Spevack v. Strauss (359 U.S. 115)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 115
Spevack v. Strauss
Messrs. Carleton U. Edwards II, and Joseph Y. Houghton (Mr. Bernard Margolius, on the brief), for petitioner.
Mr. Leonard B. Sand (Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Messrs. Samuel D. Slade, Lionel Kestenbaum, Loren K. Olson and Roland A. Anderson, on the brief), for respondents.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Spevack v. Strauss (355 U.S. 601)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 601
Spevack v. Strauss
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, and the orders of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner's motion for leave to amend the complaint and petition for rehearing, are vacated. The case is remanded to the Court ofAppeals with instruction (1) to allow petitioner's proposed amendments to the complaint and (2) to determine, in light of the amended complaint, the issues raised by petitioner's appeal.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Spevack v. Strauss (359 U.S. 115)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 115
Spevack v. Strauss
Messrs. Elisha Hanson, Arthur B. Hanson and Calvin H. Cobb, Jr., for the American Chemical Society, as amici curiae.
Messrs. Carlton S. Dargusch and Carlton S. Dargusch, Jr., for Engineers Joint Council, Inc., as amici curiae.
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Former opinion, 358 U.S. 871, 79 S.Ct. 112; 79 S.Ct. 577.
PER CURIAM.
Upon oral argument, it appeared that in the normal course the fee for petitioner's United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the District Court and that court is instructed: (1) If petitioner has by May 25, 1959, paid the patent fee for his patent, and has not requested a suspension or delay in the issuance thereof, or has withdrawn any such request theretofore made, to continue the case and the restraining orders entered herein by The Chief Justice until the patent issues, and then to dismiss the complaint as moot; (2) otherwise, on May 25, 1959, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, apart from the eri ts of the controversy, the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of an injunction at that stage of the proceedings would not be warranted. Upon the fulfillment of either of these conditions, the proceedings heretofore had in the two lower courts are vacated.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse