OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Reading Company (226 U.S. 324)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 324
United States v. Reading Company
Argued: October 10 and 11, 1911. Decided ---
[Argument of Counsel from pages 324-326 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. C. McReynolds and G. Carroll Todd, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, and Attorney General Wickersham for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 326-329 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John G. Johnson and Charles Heebner for the Reading Company et al.
Mr. Frank H. Platt for the Lehigh Valley R. Co. et al.
Messrs. Robert W. de Forest and Jackson E. Reynolds for the Central R. Co. of New Jersey et al.
Mr. William S. Jenney for the Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 329-331 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James H. Torrey for the Enterprise Coal Company et al.
Messrs. James H. Torrey and William S. Opdyke for the Delaware & Hudson Company.
[Argument of Counsel from page 332 intentionally omitted]
Mr. William W. Green for the Mercantile Trust Company.
Messrs. Adelbert Moot and George F. Brownell for the Erie Railroad Company et al.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 333-335 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Everett Warren for the Temple Irom Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 335-337 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Reading Company."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Reading Company (226 U.S. 324)
* United States v. Reading Company (228 U.S. 158)
* United States v. Reading Company (253 U.S. 26)
# United States v. Raynor

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 540
United States v. Raynor
Argued: Nov. 12-15, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1938
and Brien Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., McMahon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. John Elliott Byrne, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 541 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
186 U.S. 298
UNITED STATES, Appt., v. AUSTIN NICHOLLS & COMPANY.
Argued: May 2, 1902. --- Decided: June 2, 1902

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 197
United States v. Auffmordt
This is an action brought by the United States in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York against Clement A. Auffmordt, John F. Degener, William Degener, and Adolph William Von Kessler, composing the firm of C. A. Auffmordt & Co., to recover the sum of $321,519.29, with interest. The complaint alleges violations by the defendants of statutes of the United States in respect to entries of imported merchandise made by the defendants in 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882, the value of such merchandise being the above-named sum, and claims that, by reason of the acts of the defendants alleged in the complaint, the defendants have forfeited such value to the United States. The defendants put in an answer containing a general denial, and the case was tried in the district court before a jury.
After the case was opened to the jury on the part of the United States, and before any testimony was offered, the defendants moved, upon such opening, that the court direct a verdict for the defendants, on the ground that there was no statute of the United States whereby the value of the merchandise could be recovered by reason of the acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants as consigness of the goods, which was the capacity in which they received and entered the goods, the goods being the property of the manufacturers of them in Switzerland, and being consigned to the defendants for sale on commission. The facts sought to be proved against the defendants were that they, knowingly and with intent to defraud the revenue, entered the goods at in voice prices lower than their actual market value at the time and place of exportation. The court ruled that there was no existing statute of the United States under which the plaintiff could recover upon any possible proof, and h at a verdict must be directed for the defendants. 19 Fed. Rep. 893. The plaintiffs excepted to this ruling.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 199-202 intentionally omitted]
H. E. Tremaine and C. M. Da Costa, for defendants in error.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 348
United States v. Augenblick
Argued: Nov. 21, 1968. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1969
Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., New York City, for petitioner.
Joseph H. Sharlitt, Washington, D.C., and Francis J. Steiner, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for respondents.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 233
United States v. Atlas Life Insurance Company
Argued: March 31, 1965. --- Decided: May 17, 1965
[Syllabus from pages 233-234 intentionally omitted]
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for petitioner.
Norris Darrell, New York City, for respondent.
Daniel B. Goldberg, New York City, for Attorney General of Louisiana and others, as amici curiae.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 270
United States v. Von's Grocery Company
Argued: March 22, 1966. --- Decided: May 31, 1966
Richard A. Posner, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
William W. Alsup, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Henry J. Bison, Jr., Washington, D.C., for National Ass'n of Retail Grocers of United States, as amicus curiae.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
135 U.S. 550
United States v. Voorhees
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiff in error.
John L. Webster, for defendant in error.
LAMAR, J.

## Notes

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

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas

## Dissenting Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 624
United States v. Virginia Electric and Power Company
Argued: Nov. 10, 1960. --- Decided: April 3, 1961
Mr. Perry W. Morton, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Ralph H. Ferrell, Jr., Richmond, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# Warden Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 294
Warden Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
Argued: April 12, 1967. --- Decided: May 29, 1967
Franklin Goldstein, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland, for petitioner.
Albert R. Turnbull, Norfolk, Va., for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Wardship Act 1235

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wardship Act 1235."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Wardship Act 1235 (c.6)
* Wardship Act 1235 (c.7)
# Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc. v. Atonio/Dissent Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Blackmun Stevens
Justice BLACKMUN, with whom Justice BRENNAN and Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.
I fully concur in Justice STEVENS' analysis of this case. Today a bare majority of the Court takes three major strides backwards in the battle against race discrimination. It reaches out to make last Term's plurality opinion in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 101 L.Ed.2d 827 (1988), the law, thereby upsetting the longstanding distribution of burdens of proof in Title VII disparate-impact cases. It bars the use of internal work force comparisons in the making of a prima facie case of discrimination, even where the structure of the industry in question renders any other statistical comparison meaningless. And it requires practice-by-practice statistical proof of causation, even where, as here, such proof would be impossible.
The harshness of these results is well demonstrated by the facts of this case. The salmon industry as described by this record takes us back to a kind of overt and institutionalized discrimination we have not dealt with in years: a total residential and work environment organized on principles of racial stratification and segregation, which, as Justice STEVENS points out, resembles a plantation economy. Post, at ----, n. 4. This industry long has been characterized by a taste for discrimination of the old-fashioned sort: a preference for hiring nonwhites to fill its lowest level positions, on the condition that they stay there. The majority's legal rulings essentially immunize these practices from attack under a Title VII disparate-impact analysis.
Sadly, this comes as no surprise. One wonders whether the majority still believes that race discrimination-or, more accurately, race discrimination against nonwhites-is a problem in our society, or even remembers that it ever was. Cf. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989).

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Eaton."
* 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.
* United States v. Eaton (144 U.S. 677)
* United States v. Eaton (169 U.S. 331)
# United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company (353 U.S. 586)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 586
United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
Argued: Nov. 14, 15, 1956. --- Decided: June 3, 1957
Mr.
[Syllabus from pages 586-587 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.
Mr. Hugh B. Cox, Washington, D.C., for the appellee E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Chicago, Ill., for the appellee General Motors Corporation.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company (366 U.S. 316)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 316
United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
Argued: Feb. 20, 21, 1961. --- Decided: May 22, 1961
[Syllabus from pages 316-317 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Hugh B. Cox, New York City, for appellee, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and co.
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Chicago, Ill., for appellee, General Motors Corp.
Mr. Wilkie Bushby, New York City, for appellees, Christiana Securities Co. and Delaware Realty and Investment Co.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Wee Macgreegor

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Edition: New York: Grossett & Dunlap; undated, copyright not mentioned. Book #1 in the Wee Macgreegor series. Reviews are on the Discussion page.
According to Wikipedia (Scotland): Bell first scrieved anent Wee Macgreegor in the Glesga Evenin Times. He wis inspyrt by fowk in Glesga and wid aft times eariwig oan fowk and thair faimilies oan Argyle Street in Glesga." "The first yin "Wee Macgreegor" (1902) wis a braw success an caused a Macgreegor widdrim, wi Glesga seein a muckle demand fir taiblet (Macgreegor's fauvourite sweetie).
There! Wasn't that enlightening?
WEE MACGREEGOR
A Scottish Story
by J. J. BELL
GROSSET & DUNLAP, Publishers
11 East Sixteenth Street, New York
* Glossary 7
* Chapter I 9
* Chapter II 20
* Chapter III 33
* Chapter IV 47
* Chapter V 59
* Chapter VI 72
* Chapter VII 84
* Chapter VIII 97
* Chapter IX 111
* Chapter X 124
* Chapter XI 137
* Chapter XII 148
* Chapter XIII 161
* Chapter XIV 177
* Chapter XV 188
* advertisements
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1934, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 89 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Weird Tales/Volume 7/Issue 6/A Grave

A Grave
By Lilla Poole Price
O, bury me under the soft, blue waves,
’Mid the swirl of the billows free;
Let me find sweet rest
’Neath their foam-tipp’d crest
In the depths of the murmuring sea.
No bell shall be toll’d with its mournful sound,
No funeral pall shall be spread,
But a solemn hush
And a soft, sad rush
As the waters close over my head.
A tangle of seaweed shall be my shroud,
And a mound of coral my bier;
The voice of the sea
Shall my requiem be,
And my sleep will be tranquil here.
No roses nor lilies may deck my grave,
Nor marble shall mark my rest,
But the wonderful flow’rs
Of the ocean bow’rs
Shall lovingly twine o’er my breast.
Then bury me under the sad sea waves,
Where the winds moan soft and low;
Let the tears that are shed
For the deep-cover’d dead
With the shimmering wavelets flow.
# Weird Tales/Volume 8/Issue 1/Ghosts

From Weird Tales, Volume 8, Issue 1
Ghosts
By Louise Garwood
Who tapped upon my window pane And sighed and laughed and sighed again, Till I called aloud so the stillness heard A sweet, a long-unspoken word? Was it only wind and rain?
Yesterday, with whisper slight, Footfalls followed me, quick and light, Fluttering, restless close behind: Who went where my garden pathways wind? Dry leaves of crimson bright?
Who wails my name with sobbing cry So that I wake and weeping lie? A string of the violoncello broke, In its dusty case—but yet—who spoke? Who sighs? Who passes by?
# United States v. Ruzicka

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 287
United States v. Ruzicka
Argued: Dec. 16, 1946. --- Decided: Nov 20, 21, 1946
Mr.
George T. Washington, of Washington, D.C., Acting Sol. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. William Parker Ward, of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Russell."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Russell (80 U.S. 623)
* United States v. Russell (255 U.S. 138)
See also Russell v. United States.
# United States v. Ryan

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Ryan."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Ryan (284 U.S. 167), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Ryan (350 U.S. 299), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Ryan (402 U.S. 530), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
See also Ryan v. United States.
# United States v. Ryan (284 U.S. 167)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 167
United States v. Ryan
Argued: Oct. 26, 27, 1931. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 168 intentionally omitted]
Mr. George D. Toole, of Butte, Mont., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 169 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Russell (255 U.S. 138)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 138
United States v. Russell (255 U.S. 138)
Argued: Jan. 17, 1921. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1921
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for the United States.
Messrs. Otto Christensen and Seymour Stedman, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 138-140 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKENNA 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
# Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 33
Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Company
Argued: February 23, 1909. --- Decided: November 8, 1909
Messrs. E. Howard McCaleb and E. Howard McCaleb, Jr., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 34-37 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Edgar H. Farrar, James McConnell, Charles E. Fenner, George C. Walsh, George H. Terriberry, H. Garland Duper, Walter Guion, Victor Leovy, William C. Dufour, S. McC. Lawrason, Pierre Crabites, and H. Generes Dufour for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 37-38 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Albert B Deselms

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 159
Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Albert B Deselms
Argued: January 8, 1909. --- Decided: February 1, 1909
Messrs. John W. Shartel, J. D. Johnson, James R. Keaton, and Frank Wells for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 160-162 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. A. H. Huston and John Devereux for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 163-165 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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