OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Wyoming v. Colorado (243 U.S. 622)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 622
Wyoming v. Colorado
Argued: December 6, 7, and 8, 1916. ---
Messrs. John W. Lacey and N. E. Corthell for complainant.
Mr. Fred Farrar for the state of Colorado.
Mr. Delph E. Carpenter for the Greeley-Poudre Irrigation District.
Mr. Julius C. Gunther for the Laramie-Poudre Reservoirs & Irrigation Company.
It is ordered that this case be restored to the docket for reargument.
1. Counsel are requested to specially direct their attention to the rule which they deem should properly be applied to a solution of the controversy for decision: That is, whether the rights asserted are to be tested and determined solely by the application of the general principles of prior appropriation, without regard to state boundaries, or whether, on the contrary, the general principles of prior appropriation are subject to be restricted or their operation limited in this case by state lines, and if so, by what principles, under that assumption, the case is to be controlled.
2. They are moreover requested not merely by generalizations to state the facts relied upon, but specifically, by careful reference to the pages of the record, and to group them under the various propositions relied upon, including the extent of the use of water in both states when the work complained of was begun and when this suit was commenced, and the extent of appropriation made or authorized in either or both states since its commencement.
3. In view of the legislation of Congress concerning reclamation and the extensive public works which have been constructed under that legislation and the possible consequences which may result from the rule to be applied in the solution of this controversy, the clerk is instructed to notify the Attorney General of the United States of this order for reargument.

## 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
# Wynne v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 234
Wynne v. United States
Argued: February 28 and March 1, 1910. --- Decided: April 4, 1910
Messrs. Henry E. Davis, Frank E. Thompson, Charles F. Clemons, and Britton & Gray for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 235-238 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Fowler for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 238-240 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
# Jewell v. Knight

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 426
Jewell v. Knight
[Statement of Case from pages 426-431 intentionally omitted]
Benj. Harrison and Horace Speed, for appellants.
J. E. McDonald, J. M. Butler, and Ferdinand Winter, for appellees.
GRAY, 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
# Jewels

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Jewels."
* 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.
* "Jewels", a poem by Herbert Asquith
* "Jewels", a poem by Annie Maria Lawrence Clark
* "Jewels", a poem by Antoinette Quinby Scudder
* "Jewels", a poem by Sara Teasdale
# Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America (325 U.S. 897)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 897
JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION, a Corporation, Petitioner,
Since announcement of a mere denial of this petition for rehearing might be interpreted to rest upon any one of several grounds, I consider it appropriate to disclose the limited grounds on which I concur.
The unusual feature of the petition in this case is that it suggests to the Court a question as to the qualification of one of the Justices to take part in the decision of the cause. This petition is addressed to all of the Court and must either be granted or denied in the name of the Court and on the responsibility of all of the Justices. In my opinion the complaint is one which cannot properly be addressed to the Court as as a whole and for that reason I concur in denying it.
No statute prescribes grounds upon which a Justice of this Court may be disqualified in any case. The Court itself has never undertaken by rule of Court or decision to formulate any uniform practice on the subject. Because of this lack of authoritative standards it appears always to have been considered the responsibility of each Justice to determine for himself the propriety of withdrawing in any particular circumstances. Practice of the Justices over the years has not been uniform, and the diversity of attitudes to the question doubtless leads to some confusion as to what the bar may expect and as to whether the action in any case is a matter of individual or collective responsibility.
There is no authority known to me under which a majority of this Court has power under any circumstances to exclude one of its duly commissioned Justices from sitting or voting in any case. As to the other and usual grounds, applications for rehearing in this Court, as in other bodies, are addressed to the majority which promulgated the decision. This is so formulated by our Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 354. It is always obvious that unless one or more of them is willing to reconsider his position no good can come of reargument. Hence, being in dissent, I have no voice as to rehearing, except that I continue to adhere to the dissent.
Because of these considerations I concur in denial of the petition.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concurs in this statement.

## 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
# Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America (325 U.S. 897)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 897
JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION, a Corporation, Petitioner,
No. 721.
Petition Filed May 31, 1945.
Decided June 18, 1945.
By Mr. Justice JACKSON (concurring).

## 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
# Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the state of New York/Appendix/7/Table 9

STATEMENT
Showing Amount Reimbursed by the Commissioners of Emigration to the City and County of New York, and the several other Cities and Counties in the State of New York, and to various Charitable Institutions and Hospitals in, the State, for Care and Support of Emigrants, from May 5, 1847, to December 31. 1869, inclusive.
| Year. | City of New York. | Institutions. | Counties. | Total. |
| 1847 | $2,333 36 | $280 00 | $2,270 68 | $4,884 04 |
| 1848 | 2,540 00 | 1,487 93 | 18,421 95 | 22,449 88 |
| 1849 | 6,306 98 | 1,857 59 | 37,400 95 | 45,565 52 |
| 1850 | 10,832 75 | 2,650 71 | 26,736 40 | 40,219 86 |
| 1851 | 13,042 94 | 8,784 40 | 67,781 17 | 89,608 51 |
| 1852 | 10,912 97 | 12,755 08 | 64,763 90 | 88,431 95 |
| 1853 | 20,000 00 | 9,737 01 | 122,135 16 | 151,872 17 |
| 1854 | 27,525 36 | 9,117 50 | 78,532 85 | 115,175 71 |
| 1855 | .. | 8,645 56 | 43,181 17 | 51,826 73 |
| 1856 | .. | 10,528 07 | 13,439 97 | 23,968 04 |
| 1857 | .. | 6,680 16 | 85,563 85 | 92,244 01 |
| 1858 | .. | 8,002 73 | 16,893 16 | 24,895 89 |
| 1859 | 206 29 | 6,173 92 | 23,555 75 | 29,935 96 |
| 1860 | 753 81 | 7,001 68 | 51,113 59 | 58,869 08 |
| 1861 | 2,237 94 | 6,373 36 | 11,244 63 | 19.855 93 |
| 1862 | 1,051 11 | 4,545 83 | 10,419 12 | 16,016 06 |
| 1863 | 810 76 | 5,402 96 | 9,578 50 | 15,792 23 |
| 1864 | 2,453 62 | 5,207 09 | 11,689 00 | 19,349 71 |
| 1865 | 5,370 36 | 8,950 38 | 17,944 05 | 32,264 79 |
| 1866 | 2,814 10 | 9,201 70 | 22,980 39 | 34,996 19 |
| 1867 | 1,689 59 | 10,095 99 | 22,160 29 | 33,945 87 |
| 1868 | 63,976 08 | 12,920 72 | 24,840 40 | 101,737 20 |
| 1869 | 18,986 76 | 11,971 59 | 17,788 31 | 48,746 66 |
| | $193,844 78 | $168,371 96 | $800,435 24 | $1,162,651 98 |
# Jones v. Lemond/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 1227
Jones v. Lemond
Applicant, who has been convicted by the military authorities for unauthorized absence, brought suit in the District Court for release by habeas corpus and for other ancillary relief. He apparently has exhausted all military administrative remedies, the Court of Military Appeals having denied him any relief.
His conflict with the Navy arose out of his desire to be discharged as a conscientious objector, a status he claims to have acquired some five months after his enlistment. Department of Defense Directive 1300.6, August 21, 1962, revised May 10, 1968, provides for processing such applications and states that pending decision on the application and 'to the extent practicable,' the applicant 'will be employed in duties which involve the minimum conflict with his asserted beliefs.'
According to the allegations, applicant made repeated attempts for 37 days to file and process his application for discharge as a conscientious objector and, if the allegations are sustained, was unable either to make a filing or obtain a hearing. He thereupon left his place of duty without authorization, thereafter surrendering himself. Once again, if his allegations are believed, he was unable to make a filing or obtain a hearing on his request for discharge as a conscientious objector. He thereupon escaped from Navy custody to obtain legal counsel who surrendered him to Navy authorities while the conscientious objector application is pending.
The basic question of law is whether improper processing of an application for discharge as a conscientious objector is a defense to court-martial proceedings.
The question will in time be decided by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court as applicant has appealed from the dismissal of his petition by the District Court.
The issue tendered in this case-and in others before the Supreme Court-is that the matter of conscientious objection is of First Amendment dimensions whether based on religion, philosophy, or one's views of a particular 'war' or armed conflict. Whether that view will obtain, no one as yet knows. But if it does, the question now tendered will be of great constitutional gravity.
I express no views on the merits. But I think a substantial question is presented. A stay of a broad and sweeping character has been denied by the Court of Appeals and I would concur but for one circumstance. Confinement of applicant to the brig is apparently contemplated; and, again, if his allegations are believed, sending him there may endanger his life in view of the cruel regime which obtains in that prison.
Accordingly I have decided to grant a stay directing respondents to confine applicant in the so-called 'open restricted barracks' and restraining them from confining applicant in the brig, pending disposition of this appeal on the merits.

## 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
# Jones v. Liberty Glass Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 524
Jones v. Liberty Glass Company
Argued: Nov. 18, 1947. --- Decided: Dec 22, 1947
See 333 U.S. 850, 68 S.Ct. 657.
Mr. Lee A. Jackson, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Earl Foster, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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
# Jones v. Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 302
Jones v. Louisiana
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana
No. 1255. Argued: N/A --- Decided: June 10, 1968.
251 La. 431, 204 So. 2d 775, appeal dismissed.
Billy R. Pesnell for appellant.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and William P. Schuler, Second Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
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
# Jones v. Meehan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
175 U.S. 1
Jones v. Meehan
Argued: April 27, 28, 1898. --- Decided: October 30, 1899
Mr. James A. Kellogg for appellant.
Messrs. C. K. Davis, Frank B. Kellogg, and C. A. Severance for appellees.
Mr. Justice Gray 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
# Jones v. Louisiana/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 302
Jones v. Louisiana
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, treat the papers submitted as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissent.

## 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
# Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Kuther

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, 377 U.S. 422 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. to enhancement of function. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 422
Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Kuther
Argued: Feb. 20, 1964. --- Decided: June 8, 1964
Frank A. Neal, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.
Carlisle M. Moore, San Francisco, Cal., 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
# Wilber National Bank of Oneonta Ny v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 120
Wilber National Bank of Oneonta Ny v. United States
Argued: Dec. 7, 1934. --- Decided: Feb 4, 1935
Mr. William Wolff Smith, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Will G. Beardslee, of Washington, D.C.
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
# In Blue Creek Cañon

IN BLUE CREEK CAÑON
BY
ANNA CHAPIN RAY
AUTHOR OF "Half a Dozen Boys," "Half a Dozen Girls," ETC
NEW YORK: 46 East 14th Street THOMAS Y. CROWELL & CO. BOSTON: 100 Purchase Street
Copyright
1892,
By Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.
ANNA CHAPIN RAY'S BOOKS.
"A quiet sly humor, a faculty of investing every-day events with a dramatic interest, a photographic touch which places her characters before the reader, and a high moral tone are to be remarked in Miss Ray."—Detroit Tribune.
HALF A DOZEN BOYS.
          12mo. Illustrated . . . . . $1.25
HALF a DOZEN GIRLS.
          12mo. Illustrated . . . . . 1.25
IN BLUE CREEK CAÑON.
          12mo. Illustrated . . . . . 1.25
CADETS OF FLEMMING HALL.
          12mo. Illustrated . . . . . 1.25
For sale by all booksellers. Catalogues sent free upon application.
T. Y. CROWELL & CO. New York and Boston
If you've wronged him, speak him fair.
Say you're sorry and make it square;
If he's wronged you, wink so tight
None of you see what's plain in sight.
When the world goes hard and wrong,
Lend a hand to help him along;
When his stockings have holes to darn,
Don't you grudge him your ball of yarn.
••••• Stick to each other through thick and thin;
All the closer as age leaks in;
Squalls will blow, and clouds will frown,
But stay by your ship till you all go down!
Oliver Wendell Holmes.

### CONTENTS

CHAPTER
* A Council on Skates
* To Welcome the Coming Guest
* The Everett Household
* On the Cross-Head
* The Meeting in the Waters
* Marjorie's Party
* Janey's Prophecy
* In the Dark
* Camping on the Beaverhead
* Up the Gulch
* "Sweet Charity's Sake"
* Home Without a Mother
* At the Nine-Hundred Level
* The Beginning of the Old Story
* Mr. Atherden
* The Completed Story
* The Tragedy of the Unexpected
* Under Orders
# Willie was a wanton wag (1823)/Willie was a wanton wag

WILLIE WAS A WANTON WAG.
Willie was a wanton wag, The blythest lad that e'er I saw, At bridals still he bore the brag, And carried ay the gree awa. His doublet was of Zetland shag, And wow! but Willie he was blaw, And at his shouther hang a tag, That pleas'd the lasses best of a'.
He was a man without a clag, His heart was frank without a flaw; And ay whatever Willie said, It still was hadden as a law. His boots they were made of the jag. When the went to the Weaponshaw, Upon the green nave durst him brag, The fight a ane amang them a'.
And wasna Willie weel worth gowd? He wan the love of great and sma'; For after he the bride had kiss'd, He kiss'd the lasses hale sale a'. Sae merrily round the ring they row'd,
When by the hand he led them a', And smack on smack on them bestow'd By virtue of a standing law.
And wasna Willie a great loon, As shyre a lick as e'er was seen? When he danc'd wi' the lasses round, The bridegroom spier'd whar he had been. Quo' Willie, I've been at the ring, Wi' bobbing, faith my shanks are sair; Gae ca' your bride and maidens in, For Willie he dow do nae mair.
Then rest ye, Willie, I'll gae out, And for a wee fill up the ring But, shame light on his souple snout. He wanted Willie's wan in fling. Then straight he to the bride did fare, Say, Leeze me on your bonny face; Wi' bobbing, Willie's shanks are sair, And I'm come out to fill his place.
Bridegroom, she says, you'll spoil the dance, And at the ring you'll ay be lag, Unless, like Willie, ye advance: O! Willie has a wanton leg;
For wi't he learns us a' to steer, And foremost ay bears up the ring, We will find nae sic dancing here, If we want Willie's wanton fling.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Willing v. Binenstock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 272
Willing v. Binenstock
Argued: Nov. 17, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1937
Messrs. James M. Kane and George P. Barse, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert T. McCracken, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 274
Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association
Argued: April 19 and 20, 1928. --- Decided: May 21, 1928
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, of New York City, and Homer H. Cooper and Samuel Topliff, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 275-277 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Walter L. Fisher, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 278-283 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Willie was a wanton wag (1823)

Willie was a wanton wag.
THE JOLLY MILLER.
When trees did bud.
THE BROWN JUG.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR THE BOOKSELLERS,
1823.
* Willie was a wanton wag
* The jolly miller
* When trees did bud
* The brown jug
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Willie was a wanton wag (1823)/The brown jug

THE BROWN JUG.
Dear Tom, this brown jug, that now foams with mild ale,
Out of which I now drink to sweet Nan of the vale. Was once Toby Filpot, a thirsty old soul
As e'er drank a bottle, on fathom'd a bowl. In boozing about 'twas his praise to excel, And among jolly topers he bore off the bell.
It chanc'd as in dog-days he sat at his ease, In his flow'r-woven arbour, as gay as you please, With a friend and a pipe puffing sorrow away, And with honest old stingo was soaking his clay,
His breath doors of life on a sudden were shut, And he died full as big as a Dorchester butt.
His body, when long in the ground it had lain, And time into clay had resolved it again;
A potter found out in its covert so snug,
And with part of fat Toby he form'd this brown jug. Now sacred to friendship, to mirth and mild ale, So here's to my lovely sweet Nan of the vale.
FINIS.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Willie was a wanton wag (1823)/When trees did bud

DOWN THE BURN DAVIE.
When trees did bud and fields were green, And broom bloom'd fair to see; When Mary was complete fifteen, And love laughed in her ee; Blythe Davy's blinks her heart did move To speak her mind thus free, Gang down the burn, Davie, love, And I will follow thee.
Now Davie did each lad surpass That dwelt on this burn side: And Mary was the bonniest lass, Just meet to be a bride. Blythe Davie's blinks, &c.
Her cheeks were rosy red and white, Her een were bonny blue, Her looks were like Aurora bright. Her lips like dropping dew. Blythe Davie's blinks, &c.
What pass'd, I guess, was harmless play, And nothing, sure, unmeet! For ganging hame, I heard them say, They lik'd a walk so sweet. Blythe Davie's blinks, &c.
His cheeks to her's he fondly laid; She cried, Sweet love be true, And when a wife, as now a maid, To death I'll follow you Blythe Davie's blinks, &c.
As fate had dealt to him a routh, Straight to the kirk he led her; There plighted her his faith and truth, And a bonny bride he made her.
No more asham'd to own her love, Or speak her mind thus free; Gang down the burn, Davie, love, And I will follow thee.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse