OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XVI/Chapter 20

Chapter XX.
Of the feigned patience of some who offer the other cheek to be smitten.
We are not ignorant also of another kind of insanity, which we find in some of the brethren under colour of a counterfeit patience, as in this case it is not enough to have stirred up quarrels unless they incite them with irritating words so as to get themselves smitten, and when they have been touched by the slightest blow, at once they offer another part of their body to be smitten, as if in this way they could fulfil to perfection that command which says: “If a man smite thee on the right cheek, offer him the other also;” while they totally ignore the meaning and purpose of the passage. For they fancy that they are practising evangelical patience through the sin of anger, for the utter eradication of which not only was the exchange of retaliation and the irritation of strife forbidden, but the command was actually given us to mitigate the wrath of the striker by the endurance of a double wrong.

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. Matt. v. 39.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XVI/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.
Why inferiors should not be despised in Conference.
For it often happens either by an illusion of the devil or by the occurrence of a human mistake (by which every man in this life is liable to be deceived) that sometimes one who is keener in intellect and more learned, gets some wrong notion in his head, while he who is duller in wits and of less worth, conceives the matter better and more truly. And therefore no one, however learned he may be, should persuade himself in his empty vanity that he cannot require conference with another. For even if no deception of the devil blinds his judgment, yet he cannot avoid the noxious snares of pride and conceit. For who can arrogate this to himself without great danger, when the chosen vessel in whom, as he maintained, Christ Himself spoke, declares that he went up to Jerusalem simply and solely for this reason, that he might in a secret discussion confer with his fellow-Apostles on the gospel which he preached to the gentiles by the revelation and co-operation of the Lord? By which fact we are shown that we ought not only by these precepts to preserve unanimity and harmony, but that we need not fear any crafts of the devil opposing us, or snares of his illusions.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XVI/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.
How love does not only belong to God but is God.
Finally so highly is the virtue of love extolled that the blessed Apostle John declares that it not only belongs to God but that it is God, saying: “God is love: he therefore that abideth in love, abideth in God, and God in him.” For so far do we see that it is divine, that we find that what the Apostle says is plainly a living truth in us: “For the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who dwelleth in us.” For it is the same thing as if he said that God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Who dwelleth in us: who also, when we know not what we should pray for, “makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered: But He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what the Spirit desireth, for He asketh for the saints according to God.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 John iv. 16.
* ↑ Rom. v. 5.
* ↑ Rom. viii. 26, 27.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XVI/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.
Of those who only increase their own or their brother’s grievances by hiding them.
On the other hand we know (and O! would that we did not know) some of the brethren who are so hard and obstinate, that when they know that their own feelings are aroused against their brother, or that their brother’s are against them, in order to conceal their vexation of mind, which is caused by indignation at the grievance of one or the other, go apart from those whom they ought to smooth down by humbly making up to them and talking with them; and begin to sing some verses of the Psalms. And these while they fancy that they are softening the bitter thoughts which have arisen in their heart, increase by their insolent conduct what they could have got rid of at once if they had been willing to show more care and humility, for a well-timed expression of regret would cure their own feelings and soften their brother’s heart. For by that plan they nourish and cherish the sin of meanness or rather of pride, instead of stamping out all inducement to quarrelling, and they forget the charge of the Lord which says: “Whosoever is angry with his brother, is in danger of the judgment;” and: “if thou remember that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. Matt. v. 22–24.
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 1/Chapter 3

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
* Section 1: Construction of statutes generally.
* Section 2: Construction of definitions.
* Section 3: Definitions.
* Section 4: Effective date of legislative Acts.
* Section 4.1: Effective date for general Acts requiring increases in compensation of certain county officials
* Section 5: Operation of laws generally; retrospective operation.
* Section 6: When laws become obligatory; effect of ignorance.
* Section 7: Abrogation of laws by agreement; waiver or renunciation of benefits established by law.
* Section 8: Binding effect of legislation upon state.
* Section 9: Effect and enforcement of foreign laws.
* Section 10: Execution of writings and contracts.
* Section 11: Local referenda on abolishing offices or shortening or lengthening term.
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 1/Chapter 3/Section 2

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
As used in this Code or in any other law of this state, defined words shall have the meanings specified, unless the context in which the word or term is used clearly requires that a different meaning be used.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
“Children.”—A ward’s stepchildren were not “children” under the guardianship statute, nor were they next of kin and, because there were individuals related to the ward by blood, who were not notified of the guardianship proceedings, the appointment of the guardian was void. Wilson v. James, 260 Ga. 234, 392 S. E. 2d 5 (1990).
“Person.”—Non-profit association with the purpose of focusing on public interest matters of self-defense and gun laws of the State of Georgia was not a “person” which could claim to have an interest in the offices held by the Georgia Code Revision Commission members for purposes of pursuing a writ of quo warranto under O. C. G. A. § 9—6—60. No association standing was shown because the interests the association sought to protect were not shown to be germane to its purpose. Georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. Allen, 299 Ga. 716, 791 S. E. 2d 800 (2016).
“Property” in apportionment statute included tangible and intangible property.—O. C. G. A. § 51—12—33, Georgia’s apportionment statute, applied to tort claims for damage to tangible and intangible property and, therefore, applied to purely pecuniary losses. FDIC v. Loudermilk, 305 Ga. 558, 826 S. E. 2d 116 (2019).
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 1/Chapter 3/Section 4.1

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 1—3—4, no general Act which provides for an increase in compensation to one or more of the county officials listed in Article IX, Section I, Paragraph III of the Constitution or Chapter 10 of Title 15 shall be effective until the first day of January following passage of the Act.
(Code 1981, § 1—3—4.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 984, § 2; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1397, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1197, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 11, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 985, § 2; Ga. L. 2003, p. 140, § 1.)
Cross references.—Specific provisions regarding compensation of county officers listed in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III, § 15—6—88 et seq. (clerk of the superior court), § 15—9—63 et seq. (judge of the probate court), § 15—16—20 et seq. (sheriff), §§ 48—5—180, 48—5—183 (tax receiver, tax collector, and tax commissioner).
Code Commission notes.—Pursuant to Code Section 28—9—5, in 2002, “Code Section” was substituted for “O. C. G. A. R.”
Editor’s notes.—Ga. L. 1985, p. 984, § 3, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that that Act would apply to general Acts affecting the compensation of the county officers listed in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III which are enacted after January 1, 1986.
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 28/Chapter 11

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 28

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
* Note
* Chapter 1: General Provisions
* Chapter 2: Apportionment of House of Representatives and Senate; Qualifications of Members
* Chapter 3: Administrative Personnel
* Chapter 4: Legislative Services
* Chapter 5: Financial Affairs
* Chapter 6: Interstate Cooperation
* Chapter 7: Prohibited Lobbying Practices
* Chapter 8: Georgia Criminal Justice Improvement Council
* Chapter 9: Code Revision Commission
* Chapter 10: Georgia Rail Passenger Authority Overview Committee
* Chapter 11: Ethics and Efficiency in Government Act
* Chapter 12: Special Joint Committee on Georgia Revenue Structure
* Chapter 13: 2011 Special Council and Committee on Criminal Justice Reform
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 28/Chapter 1

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
# Official Code of Georgia Annotated/Title 28/Chapter 10

This is revision 73, as released by Public.Domain.Org.
# Oklahoma v. Texas (274 U.S. 714)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 714
Oklahoma v. Texas (274 U.S. 714)
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
Messrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., C. M. Cureton and W. A. Keeling, both of Austin, Tex., and T. W. Gregory and R. H. Ward, both of Houston, Tex., for the State of Texas.
On consideration of the fourth report of the commissioners, heretofore selected to run, locate, and mark portions of the boundary between the states of Texas and Oklahoma along the south bank of the Red river, showing that they have run, located, and marked particular portions of such boundary between the eastern limit of Lamar county, Texas, and the eastern boundary of the state of Oklahoma, which fourth report was presented herein February 21, 1927;
And no objection or exception to such report being presented, although the time therefor has expired:
It is now adjudged, ordered and decreed as follows:
1. The said report is in all respects confirmed.
2. The boundary line delineated and set forth in the said report and on the accompanying maps is established and declared to be the true boundary between the states of Texas and Oklahoma along the Red river at the several places designated in such report, subject, however, to such changes as hereafter may be wrought by the natural and gradual processes known as erosion and accretion as specified in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the decree rendered herein March 12, 1923. 261 U.S. 340, 43 S.C.t. 376, 67 L. Ed. 687.
3. The clerk of this court shall transmit to the Chief Magistrates of the states of Texas and Oklahoma copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this court, together with copies of the said fourth report and of the accompanying maps.
4. As it appears that the commissioners appointed to run, locate, and mark portions of the boundary along the south bank of the Red river have completed their work conformably to the decree of March 12, 1923, the said commissioners are hereby discharged.
5. The clerk of this court shall distribute and deliver to the Chief Magistrates of the states of Texas and Oklahoma and the Secretary of the Interior all copies of the first, second, third, and fourth boundary reports made by the commissioners, with the accompanying maps, now in the clerk's hands, save that he shall retain twenty copies of each for purposes of certification and other needs that may arise in his office.
6. Except as otherwise specially ordered by this court, the costs in this cause pertaining to the adjudication and settlement of the boundary between the two states along the Red river shall be borne in equal parts by the state of Oklahoma, the state of Texas, and the United States.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Oklahoma v. Texas (276 U.S. 596)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 596
Oklahoma v. Texas (276 U.S. 596)
Argued: March 5, 1928. ---
Upon consideration of the responses to the rule to show cause issued on January 9, 1928 (48 S.C.t. 205, 72 L. Ed. -), it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that clause 1 of the decree entered in this cause on January 3, 1927 (273 U.S. 93, 47 S.C.t. 307, 71 L. Ed. 555), be and is changed so as to read as follows:
',1. The boundary between the state of Texas and the state of Oklahoma consituting the eastern boundary of the Panhandle of Texas and the main western boundary of Oklahoma, is the line of the true one-hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, extending north from its intersection with the south bank of the South fork of Red river to its intersection with the northern boundary line of the state of Texas as surveyed and marked upon the ground by John H. Clark, United States commissioner, under the Act of June 5, 1858, c. 92 (11 Stat. 310), or with a line running due east from the eastern terminus of the Clark survey if it is west of the meridian.'
The clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to the Governors of Texas and Oklahoma, the Secretary of the Interior, and Samuel S. Gannett, commissioner, respectively.

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (272 U.S. 21)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 21
Oklahoma v. Texas (272 U.S. 21)
Argued: on the Counterclaim Nov. 25, 1925. --- Decided: Oct 11, 1926
[Syllabus from pages 21-23 intentionally omitted]
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of oklahoma.
Messrs. Thomas W. Gregory and R. H. Ward, both of Houston, Tex., C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., Orville Bullington and A. H. Carringan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., and C. M. Cureton and W. A. Keeling, both of Austin, Tex., for the State of Texas.
W. W. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (273 U.S. 93)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 93
Oklahoma v. Texas (273 U.S. 93)
Submitted on Proposed Form of Decree by Texas Nov. 1, 1926.
R. H. Ward, of Houston, Tex., for the State of Texas.
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (273 U.S. 93)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 93
Oklahoma v. Texas (273 U.S. 93)
This cause having been heard and submitted under the counterclaim of the state of Texas, and the court having considered the same and announced its conclusions in an opinion delivered October 11, 1926 (272 U.S. 21, 47 S.C.t. 9, 71 L. Ed. ), it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:
1. The boundary between the state of Texas and the state of Oklahoma constituting the eastern boundary of the panhandle of Texas and the main western boundary of Oklahoma, is the line of the true one hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, extending north from its intersection with the south bank of the South fork of Red river to tis intersection with the line of the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude.
2. Samuel S. Gannett, geodetic and astronomic engineer, is designated as commissioner to run, locate, and mark the boundary between the two states as determined by this decree. In ascertaining and locating the line of said meridian, the commissioner shall use the most accurate method now known to science and applicable in that locality, and he shall mark the boundary, as thus ascertained, by establishing permanent monuments thereon, suitably marked and at appropriate distances.
3. The commissioner shall include in his report a description of the monuments so established and of their locations. And he shall file with his report the field notes of his survey, showing the method used by him in ascertaining and locating the line of the meridian, and a map showing the boundary line as run and marked by him; also ten copies of his report and map.
4. Before entering upon his work the commissioner shall take and subscribe his oath to perform his duties faithfully and impartially. He shall prosecute the work with diligence and dispatch, and shall have authority to employ such assistants as may be needed therein, and he shall include in his report a statement of the work done, the time employed, and the expenses incurred.
5. The work of the commissioner shall be subject in all its parts to the approval of the court. One copy each of the commissioner's report and map shall be promptly transmitted by the clerk to the Governors of the two states and the Secretary of the Interior; and exceptions or objections to the commissioner's report, if there be such, shall be presented to the court, or, if it be not in session, filed with the clerk, within 40 days after the report is filed.
6. If, for any reason, there occurs a vacancy in the commission when the court is not in session, the same may be filled by the designation of a new commissioner by the Chief Justice.
7. All the costs of executing this decree, including the compensation and expenses of the commissioner, shall be borne in three equal parts by the two states and the United States.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Oklahoma v. Texas (281 U.S. 694)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 694
The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, complainant, v. The STATE OF TEXAS, defendant, the United States of America, intervener.
On consideration of the report dated July 15, 1929, of Samuel S. Gannett, commissioner, heretofore designated to run, locate, and mark the boundary between the State of Oklahoma and the State of Texas along the true one hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich as determined by the decree of January 3, 1927 (273 U.S. 93, 47 S.C.t. 307, 71 L. Ed. 555), modified by the decree of March 5, 1928 (276 U.S. 596, 48 S.C.t. 205, 297, 72 L. Ed. 723), showing that he has run, located, and marked such boundary;
And no objection or exception to such report being presented, and the time therefor having expired;
It is now adjudged, ordered, and decreed as follows:
1. The said report is in all things confirmed.
2. The boundary line delineated and set forth in said report and on the accompanying maps is established and declared to be the true boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma along said meridian.
3. The clerk of this Court shall transmit to the chief magistrates of the States of Texas and Oklahoma and the Secretary of the Interior, copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this Court, together with copies of said report and of the accompanying maps.
4. As it appears that the said commissioner has completed his work conformably to said decrees, he is hereby discharged.
5. The clerk of this Court shall distribute and deliver to the chief magistrates of the States of Texas and Oklahoma and the Secretary of the Interior all copies of the said report made by the commissioner, with the accompanying maps, now in the clerk's hands, save that he shall retain 20 copies of each for purposes of certification and other needs that may arise in his office. Decree announced by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes.

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (274 U.S. 714)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 714
Oklahoma v. Texas (274 U.S. 714)

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (281 U.S. 694)

United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 694
The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, complainant, v. The STATE OF TEXAS, defendant, the United States of America, intervener.

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (276 U.S. 596)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 596
Oklahoma v. Texas (276 U.S. 596)
Argued: March 5, 1928. ---
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of oklahoma.
Messrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., C. M. Cureton and W. A. Keeling, both of Austin, Tex., and T. W. Gregory and R. H. Ward, both of Houston, Tex., for the State of Texas.
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