OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# St. Louis Railway Company v. Nattin/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 157
St. Louis Railway Company v. Nattin
Argued: March 2, 1928. --- Decided: May 14, 1928
This cause was heard by a specially constituted District Court-three judges. Judicial Code, §§ 238, 266 (28 USCA §§ 345, 380). It dismissed the bill and directed that the costs, together with 10 per cent. damages, be assessed against appellant. The opinion of the court, considered with the argument here, so plainly demonstrates the lack of merit in the claims advanced that we need not discuss them at length.
The appellant owns a line of railroad lying partly in Bossier parish, La.; also all stock of the corporate owner of the bridge over Red river at Bossier City. Purporting to proceed as directed by the state statute, the police jury of that parish undertook to create from the major part of its territory a consolidated road district, to issue bonds thereof to pay for constructing a highway therein and to lay an ad valorem tax upon all property within the district to meet the obligation. Appellant asked for an injunction prohibiting any attempt to collect the taxes levied and assessed for the year 1926. None of the alleged grounds for relief is substantial.
In Louisiana the police jury, subordinate to the state Legislature, is the governing body of the parish. A statute of the state empowers these juries to create road districts from such portions of their parishes as they may determine, and, with the approval of a popular vote, to construct roads and issue bonds to pay therefor.
The validity of this statute is challenged upon the ground that it fails to provide the taxpayer with proper opportunity to be heard. A sufficient short answer is that under the repeated decisions here this is not essential. Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester County, 261 U.S. 155, 43 S.C.t. 261, 67 L. Ed. 585; Hancock v. Muskogee, 250 U.S. 454, 39 S.C.t. 528, 63 L. Ed. 1081. But here in fact the appellant had abundant opportunity to present objections to the proposed plan.
We find nothing in the Constitution of Louisiana, when reasonably construed, which inhibited the collection in 1926 of a tax partly intended to supply funds to meet installments of principal and interest upon bonds maturing in March, 1927.
As the assailed tax was general and ad valorem, its legality does not depend upon the receipt of any special benefit by the taxpayer.
The local statutes provided ample opportunity for the appellant to contest the valuation of its property for taxation purposes.
Without doubt a local legislative body, when properly authorized, may lay general ad valorem taxes upon all property within its jurisdiction, including that of common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, without violating the Federal Constitution. That such taxation does not amount to regulation of interstate commerce is settled doctrine.
The decree below 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
# St. Louis Railway Company v. Public Service Commission of Missouri

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
254 U.S. 535
St. Louis Railway Company v. Public Service Commission of Missouri
Argued: Dec. 9, 1920. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1921
Messrs. Wm. F. Evans and Edward T. Miller, both of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James D. Lindsay, of Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant in error.
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
# St. Louis Railway Company v. McBride

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
141 U.S. 127
St. Louis Railway Company v. McBride
A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, and Geo. R. Peck, for plaintiff in error.
A. H. Garland, for defendants in error.
BREWER, 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
# Socialist Ten Commandments
## Socialist Ten Commandments

Used in all the Socialist Sunday Schools, and committed to memory by the children.
* Love your school companions, who will be your co-workers in life.
* Love learning which is the food of the mind; be as grateful to your teachers as to your parents.
* Make every day holy by good and useful deeds and kindly actions.
* Honour good men and women; be courteous to all; bow down to none.
* Do not hate or speak evil of any one; do not be revengeful, but stand up for your rights and resist oppression.
* Do not be cowardly. Be a good friend to the weak, and love justice.
* Remember that all good things of the earth are produced by labour. Whoever enjoys them without working for them is stealing the bread of the workers.
* Observe and think in order to discover the truth. Do not believe what is contrary to reason, and never deceive yourself or others.
* Do not think that they who love their own country must hate and despise other nations, or wish for war, which is a remnant of barbarism.
* Look forward to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one community, and live together as equals in peace and righteousness.
Socialist Club, 16 Wood Street, Bolton (circa 1912)
This work was published in 1912 and is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 111 years or less since publication.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Sociedad Mario Mercado Hijos v. Puerto Rico

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 412
SOCIEDAD de MARIO MERCADO e HIJOS v. PUERTO RICO et al.
Pedro M. Porrata and Charles Cuprill Oppenheimer, for appellant.
J. B. Fernandez Badillo, Sol. Gen. of Puerto Rico, and Irene Curbelo, Asst. Sol. Gen., 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
# Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan
## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
Supreme Court of the United States
406 U.S. 583
Socialist Labor Party et al. v. Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
No. 70-21. Argued: March 23, 1972 --- Decided: May 30, 1972
Appellant political party, its officers, and members, attacked the constitutionality of revisions of the Ohio election code made following this Court's decision in Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, and a provision that a political party execute a loyalty affidavit under oath in order to obtain a ballot position. The District Court, deciding the case on cross-motions for summary judgment on the basis of the pleadings and supporting affidavits, upheld all appellants' challenges except that involving the oath provision. All parties appealed. A revision of the election code made after this Court noted probable jurisdiction mooted all but the oath issue. Appellants, who did not attack the oath provision in Rhodes and who have been on the ballot and presumably have complied with that provision since its adoption in 1941, contend that it violates the First Amendment, is impermissibly vague, does not comport with due process, and, since it applies to them and not the two major political parties, violates equal protection.
Held: The record and pleadings on the one issue not mooted by the supervening legislation (an issue that received scant attention in appellants' complaint and none in the affidavits supporting the cross-motions for summary judgment) are inadequate for resolution of the constitutional questions presented, and in view of the abstract and speculative posture of the case the appeal must therefore be dismissed. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549. Pp. 585-589.
318 F. Supp. 1262, appeal dismissed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 589.
Sanford Jay Rosen argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Melvin L. Wulf, Benjamin Sheerer, and Jerry Gordon.
Donald J. Guittar, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were William J. Brown, Attorney General, and Harold C. Heiss.
# Shamrock Oil Gas Corporation v. Sheets

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 100
Shamrock Oil Gas Corporation v. Sheets
Argued: April 8, 1941. --- Decided: April 28, 1941
Messrs. W. M. Sutton and R. C. Johnson, both of Amarillo, Tex., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 100-102 intentionally omitted]
Mr. E. Byron Singleton, of Amarillo, Tex., for respondents.
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
# Shame On You, Rush Limbaugh

Source: 2012 Congressional Record, Vol. 158, Page H1116 www.gpo.gov
Shame On You, Rush Limbaugh
HON. JACKIE SPEIER
OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 1, 2012
(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to say to Rush Limbaugh,
"Shame on you."
Shame on you for being the hatemonger that you are. Shame on you for being misogynistic. Shame on you for calling the women of this country sluts and prostitutes, because that's what he did.
Ninety-eight percent of the women in this country, at some time in their lives, use birth control. And yet he went on the air recently and called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute because she was trying to access birth control pills as a third-year law student at Georgetown.
So I say to the women in this country, Do something about this. I say to the women of this country, Ask Century 21, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, and Sleep Number to stop supporting the hatemongering of Rush Limbaugh, and if they do not do that, then I ask them to boycott those companies.
____________________
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
# Shams ul Arifeen English Translation with Persian Text

Shams ul Arifeen English Translation with Persian Text: is the translated English version by Ambreen Moghees Sarwari Qadri. This book contains the original Persian text written by Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Bahoo, the most famous and elevated Saint of the Indian subcontinent. This Persian text is translated in this book under the supervision of the Spiritual Guide of the Sarwari Qadri Order, Sultan-ul-Ashiqeen Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman. As of now, the book is available in three languages: Persian, Urdu and English. It was published in 2016 by Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. Shams-ul-Arifeen (The Enlightening Sun for the Knowers of Allah) is a collection of important topics from eight of Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Bahoo’s books i.e. it is the essence of his eight books. This book is a guide to the path of Faqr, the spiritual way to Allah. The book explains the importance and the proper method of performing all the spiritual acts like Zikr, Muraqbah and Dawat etc. It also discusses the spiritual levels of Fana-Fi-Shaikh, Fana-Fi-Ism-e-Mohammad and Fana Fillah which are gained through these acts and bless with the presence of the Assembly of Prophet Mohammad and Vision of Allah.

## Contents

* Preface
* Short Biography of Sultan Bahoo
* Shams ul Arifeen English Translation
CHAPTERS
* Benefits of reading and acting upon the teachings of this book
* How to start the Zikr
* Muraqbah
* Discussion about the levels of Fana-Fi- Shaikh, Fana-Fi-Ism-e-Mohammad and Fana Fillah
* Discussion about the Holy Assembly of Prophet Mohammad
* Discussion about reciting Dawat at the shrines
* Miscellaneous
* Glossary
* Original Persian Text
This book is the English translation with Persian text of the book Shams ul Arifeen.
This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.
Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Shams ul Arifeen English Translation with Persian Text/Preface

Shams-ul-Arifeen (The enlightening sun for the Knowers of Allah)is a collection of important topics selected from eight of Sultan Bahoo’s books i.e. Kaleed-ul-Tauheed, Qurb-e-Deedar, Majmoa-tul-Fazal, Aqal-e-Beydar, Jamay-ul-Asrar, Noor-ul-Huda, Ain Numa and Fazal-ul-Laqa. It is compiled by Sultan Bahoo's son Sultan Wali Mohammad for the ease of the seekers of Allah who seek guidance from the books of Sultan Bahoo. It contains the essence of eight of his books, rather is a summary of all his books. Sultan Wali Mohammad has not added or changed any word, he has just selected and compiled the original pieces of writing. So, Shams-ul-Arifeenis considered as the book of Sultan Bahoo. Sultan-ul-Arifeen Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Bahoo was the scholar of Divine Knowledge. My Murshid, Sultan-ul-Ashiqeen Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman , who is the spiritual descendant of Sultan Bahoo and the present Shaikh of his Sarwari Qadri Order, conferred on me the honour of translating Sultan Bahoo’s books into English. To translate Shams-ul-Arifeen he provided me its manuscript written by Shahbaz-e-Arifaan Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Pir Syed Mohammad Bahadur Ali Shah who was also the Shaikh of Sarwari Qadri Order and lived during the period 1801-1934. He spent almost forty years of his life at the shrine of Sultan Bahoo and during the stay he copied and saved most of the books of Sultan Bahoo. The manuscript of Shams-ul-Arifeen was written by him in Ramazan 1915 (1330 Hijri). There are some other manuscripts of Shams-ul-Arifeen available but the manuscript of Pir Bahadur Ali Shah is the most authentic because he was also the spiritual successor of Sultan Bahoo.
# Shanferoke Coal Supply Corporation v. Westchester Service Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 449
Shanferoke Coal Supply Corporation v. Westchester Service Corporation
No. 211 Argued: Dec. 7, 1934. --- Decided: Jan 7, 1935
Messrs. Alfred B. Nathan and George C. Levin, both of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Ernest E. Wheeler, of New York City, for respondent.
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
# Rules of Melbourne Football Club

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Rules of Melbourne Football Club."
* 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.
* Rules of Melbourne Football Club (1859)
* Rules of Melbourne Football Club (1860)
# Rules of Melbourne Football Club (1859)

Rules of Melbourne Football Club, dating from May 1859.
I
The distance between the Goals and the Goal Posts shall be decided upon by the Captains of the sides playing.
II
The Captains on each side shall toss for choice of Goal; the side losing the toss has the Kick off from the centre point between the Goals.
III
A goal must be kicked fairly between the posts, without touching either of them, or a portion of the person of any player on either side.
IV
The game shall be played within a space of not more than 200 yards wide, the same to be measured equally on each side of a line drawn through the centres of the two Goals; and two posts to be called the 'Kick Off' posts shall be erected at a distance of 20 yards on each side of the Goal posts at both ends, and in a straight line with them.
V
In case the Ball is kicked behind Goal, any one of the side behind whose Goal it is kicked may bring it 20 yards in front of any portion of the space between the 'Kick Off' posts, and shall kick it as nearly as possible in line with the opposite Goal.
VI
Any player catching the ball directly from the foot may call 'mark'. He then has a free kick; no player from the opposite side being allowed to come inside the spot marked.
VII
Tripping and pushing are both allowed (but no hacking) when any player is in rapid motion or in possession of the Ball, except in the case provided for in Rule VI.
VIII
The ball may be taken in hand only when caught from the foot, or on the hop. In no case shall it be lifted from the ground.
IX
When a Ball goes out of bounds (the same being indicated by a row of posts) it shall be brought back to the point where it crossed the boundary-line, and thrown in at right angles with that line.
X
The Ball, while in play, may under no circumstances be thrown.
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
# Rules of Proceeding and Debate in Deliberative Assemblies

PUBLISHER'S ADVERTISEMENT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
# Stanley v. Gadsby

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 521
Stanley v. Gadsby
ON appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in the county of Washington.
This was a bill filed in the circuit court, by the appellant, against the executors of James Walker, praying for an injunction on a trustee, to prevent his proceeding to sell certain real estate, conveyed to him to secure the payment of a sum of money loaned to the complainant; and for relief against an alleged usurious contract.
The circuit court dismissed the bill.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was submitted to the court without argument, by Mr Swann, for the appellants; and by Coxe, for the appellees.
Mr Justice WAYNE 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
# Stanley v. Georgia

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 557
Stanley v. Georgia
Argued: Jan. 14 and 15, 1969. --- Decided: April 7, 1969
Wesley R. Asinof, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
J. Robert Sparks, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL 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
# Stanhope

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Stanhope."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, travel guide, 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.
    & Charles Stanhope (1780-1851), fourth Earl of Harrington
* Stanhope, Leicester, fifth Earl of Harrington
* Stanhope, William, first Earl of Harrington
    & William Stanhope (1719-1779), second Earl of Harrington
# Stanley v. Board of Superiors of the County of Albany

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
121 U.S. 535
Stanley v. Board of Superiors of the County of Albany
[Statement of Case from pages 535-537 intentionally omitted]
Matthew Hale, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 537-542 intentionally omitted]
S. W. Rosendale and W. H. Peckham, for defendant in error.
FIELD, 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
# Sonnet 109 (Shakespeare)

One of the 154 sonnets by Shakespeare from the collection Shakespeare's Sonnets (1609).

### In the collected Sonnets

* "Sonnet 109," in Shake-speares Sonnets, Never before Imprinted (1609)
* "Sonnet 109," in Shakespeare's Sonnets, (ed.) by William J. Rolfe (1883)
* "Sonnet 109," in Shakespeare's Sonnets, (ed.) by Edward Bliss Reed, The Yale Shakespeare (1923)

### Other editions

* "Poem XIII: The Unchangeable," in the Golden Treasury of English Songs and Lyrics, (ed.) by Francis Turner Palgrave (1861).
* "Sonnets (xvii)" in the Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900 (ed.) by Arthur Quiller-Couch (1931).
* "Sonnets (xvii)" in the Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918 (ed.) by Arthur Quiller-Couch (1940).
The Sonnets of William Shakespeare
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
# Sonnet 111 (Shakespeare)

One of the 154 sonnets by Shakespeare from the collection Shakespeare's Sonnets (1609).
* "Sonnet 111," in Shake-speares Sonnets, Never before Imprinted (1609)
* "Sonnet 111," in Shakespeare's Sonnets, (ed.) by William J. Rolfe (1883)
* "Sonnet 111," in Shakespeare's Sonnets, (ed.) by Edward Bliss Reed, The Yale Shakespeare (1923)
The Sonnets of William Shakespeare
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
# Sonnet 10 (Barnfield)

Published in Cynthia, with certaine Sonnets and the Legend of Cassandra (1595).
* "Sonnet X" in The Complete Poems of Richard Barnfield (ed.) by Alexander B. Grosart (1876).
* "Sonnet X" in Barnfield's Poems (ed.) by Edward Arber (1878).