OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# In re Gault/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black White
* Concurrence/Dissent Harlan
* Dissenting Opinion Stewart
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion except for Part V. I also agree that the privilege against compelled self-incrimination applies at the adjudicatory stage of juvenile court proceedings. I do not, however, find an adequate basis in the record for determining whether that privilege was violated in this case. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being "compelled" in any criminal proceeding to be a witness against himself. Compulsion is essential to a violation. It may be that, when a judge, armed with the authority he has or which people think he has, asks questions of a party or a witness in an adjudicatory hearing, that person, especially if a minor, would feel compelled to answer, absent a warning to the contrary or similar information from some other source. The difficulty is that the record made at the habeas corpus hearing, which is the only information we have concerning the proceedings in the juvenile court, does not directly inform us whether Gerald Gault or his parents were told of Gerald's right to remain silent; nor does it reveal whether the parties [p65] were aware of the privilege from some other source, just as they were already aware that they had the right to have the help of counsel and to have witnesses on their behalf. The petition for habeas corpus did not raise the Fifth Amendment issue, nor did any of the witnesses focus on it.
I have previously recorded my views with respect to what I have deemed unsound applications of the Fifth Amendment. See, for example, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436"]384 U.S. 436, 526, and 384 U.S. 436, 526, and Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 33, dissenting opinions. These views, of course, have not prevailed. But I do hope that the Court will proceed with some care in extending the privilege, with all its vigor, to proceedings in juvenile court, particularly the nonadjudicatory stages of those proceedings.
In any event, I would not reach the Fifth Amendment issue here. I think the Court is clearly ill-advised to review this case on the basis of Miranda v. Arizona, since the adjudication of delinquency took place in 1964, long before the Miranda decision. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719. Under these circumstances, this case is a poor vehicle for resolving a difficult problem. Moreover, no prejudice to appellants is at stake in this regard. The judgment below must be reversed on other grounds, and, in the event further proceedings are to be had, Gerald Gault will have counsel available to advise him.
For somewhat similar reasons, I would not reach the questions of confrontation and cross-examination, which are also dealt with in Part V of the opinion.
# Inland Transit/Barnes

Mr. Frederick Barnes.—p. 86.
1. Are you a wholesale ironmonger?
I am.
2. Have you an establishment in Fenchurch-street?
I have.
3. And also an establishment at Birmingham?
I have.
4. Have you occasion to transmit orders for different description of goods to Birmingham?
Daily.
5. Are you concerned in the export trade?
I am.
6. Do you receive some of the packages up by coach?
Three or four every day from different manufactories, and always one or two from our own house.
7. Do you ever find that packages which you require to be conveyed by coach are in consequence expensive?
Very frequently
8. Is that a considerable embarrassment to your trade?
Very much so.
9. Have you had packages refused by the Albion, the Emerald, or the Greyhound?
Yes. The answer was, "Mr. Barnes, you would not like to travel in a coach with 800 or 900 lbs, on the top of it or in the boot."
10. Have you sustained any loss by it in your business?
Very decidedly; in fact it has been the ruin of our business.
11. Can you give any instances?
I have now an order for a quantity of goods which, if I could get up in the course of two or three days from this, ​ would be in time for shipment, otherwise they must lie in my warehouse for a month or six weeks, or two months.
12. The rapid transit of these goods by means of a Railroad would enable you to effect those orders on which you at present have these difficulties?
Yes. I sent the order on Thursday night; they would not be able to make the glass till Monday; it will be positively ready on Tuesday, and if I could get it on Wednesday morning it would be in sufficient time. It is for Demerara, and I must bring it up by coach to get it in time. They are shades for candlesticks, and I cannot send the candelabras out without the shades.
Three months ago I had a large order for arms; it is not for me to say where they were going; but they were wanted directly; I did not get them all in time, and many were thrown on my hands, although I shipped some of them at three o'clock on Saturday.
17. Do you then, in point of fact, find from experience that expedition and certainty as to the article you want to export is of the greatest importance to you in your trade?
It is most invaluable to us.
18. If a Railroad was established between Birmingham and London, would it be a considerable benefit to your trade?
Certainly; I am quite sure my business would increase very considerably.
# Inland Transit/Badger

Mr. Thomas Badger.—p. 99.
1. Do you live at Dudley. Mr. Badger?
I do.
2. Are you a magistrate for the counties of Worcester and Stafford?
I am.
3. In what manufacture are you engaged?
Nails and glass, and other hardwares, as well as flint glass.
6. Would a more expeditious delivery of goods than now exists be a benefit to the glass and nail trade?
Undoubtedly.
7. To which would it be the greatest gain?
To glass.
8. Does it come within your knowledge that some of the manufacturers have established houses in London where they keep large stocks?
Two of the largest houses have.
9. Is that to enable them to supply them with the glass they order?
It is.
10. If there was increased communication, would it enable glass-blowers to dispense with these large stocks?
I think it would.
11. Would the proposed Railroad be advantageous on these grounds?
​ Most undoubtedly.
23. Are you acquainted with the state of the neighbouring poor in your neighbourhood?
I am.
26. Would the money to be expended in completing the Railroad be a gain to the neighbouring poor in your district?
Most desirable; of immense service.
# Inland Steel Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 153
Inland Steel Company v. United States
Argued: Jan. 3, 4, 1939. --- Decided: Jan 30, 1939
Messrs. John S. Burchmore and Nuel D. Belnap, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Messrs. Edward M. Reidy, of Washington, D.C., and J. R. Barse, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
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
# Inland Transit

Second edition.
Inland Transit.
the
Practicability, Utility, and Benefit
of
Railroads;
The Comparative Attraction and Speed
of
Steam Engines,
on
A Railroad, Navigation, and Turnpike Road;
Report
Of a Select Committee of the House of Commons On
Steam Carriages,
With an Abstract of the Evidence Taken Before Parliament On the Birmingham Railroad Bill; With the Preamble;
also,
The Plans, Sections, and Estimates
of the
Projected Grand Southern And Northern Railroads.
By N. W. Cundy, Civil Engineer.
Second Edition.
London:
published by
G. Hebert, 88. Cheapside; T. Egerton, 30. Charing Cross; And J. Ridgway, 169. Piccadilly.
1834.
Price Seven Shillings and Sixpence.
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
# Infantry, Part I: Regular Army / The First World War

U.S. Army Center for Military History publication

## 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
# Infantry, Part I: Regular Army / The Era of Revolution

U.S. Army Center for Military History publication
* John Haslet's Delaware Regiment
* James Livingston's Regiment, known as the 1st Canadian.
* Moses Hazen's Regiment; known as the 2nd Canadian, also as Congress' Own. (The two Canadian regiments contained about equal numbers of Canadians and New Englanders, but in January 1781 all foreigners in the service were transferred to Hazen's.)
* Seth Warner's Regiment, officered by men who had participated in the invasion of Canada in 1775 and filled in part by Green Mountain Boys.
* Samuel Miles' Pennsylvania Rifle Regiment
* 2nd-12th Pennsylvania
* 1st-3rd Georgia
* 1st-3rd New Jersey
* 1st-9th Virginia
* William Smallwood's Maryland Regiment
* Charles Burrall's Connecticut Regiment
* Samuel Elmore's Connecticut Regiment
* Andrew Ward's Connecticut Regiment
* The German Battalion
* 1st-15th Massachusetts
* 5th New York
* 1st-6th Maryland
* 4th New Jersey
* 7th-10th North Carolina
* 10th-15th Virginia
* The Corps of Invalids

## 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
# Infantry, Part I: Regular Army / Through the Second War With England

U.S. Army Center for Military History publication
* 1st Infantry formed by consolidation of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 44th
* 2nd Infantry formed by consolidation of the 6th, 16th, 22nd, 23rd, and 32nd
* 3rd Infantry formed by consolidation of the 1st, 5th, 17th, 19th, and 28th
* 4th Infantry formed by consolidation of the 14th, 18th, 20th, 36th, and 38th
* 5th Infantry formed by consolidation of the 4th, 9th, 13th, 21st, 40th, and 46th
* 6th Infantry formed by consolidation of the 11th, 25th, 27th, 29th, and 37th
* 7th Infantry formed by consolidation of the 8th, 24th, and 39th
* 8th Infantry formed by consolidation of the 10th and 12th

## 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
# Inferno

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Inferno."
* 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.
* Inferno, the first part of Dante's Divine Comedy.
* "Inferno", a poem by Clark Ashton Smith.
# Infantry, Part I: Regular Army / The Germinal Period, 1816-1860

U.S. Army Center for Military History publication
* When obliged to wage war as a nation, the United States was caught between the fear of a standing army and the inadequacies of a militia controlled by the several states. Some sort of compromise was necessary, and that proved to be an old type, volunteer soldiers organized into provisional wartime regiments. There were also peacetime volunteers- quite distinct from those raised for a war- at hand in the militia.
* In the large seaboard cities there were independent or chartered companies of citizen soldiers apart from the common or standing militia. They were composed of men who liked military exercise well enough to buy their own uniforms, drill regularly, and hold together in peace as well as war. These units usually received charters from the states, and they very soon constituted an elite corps. This corps became the parent of the National Guard of the twentieth century. The title "Volunteers" with a capital V was applied to them early in the nineteenth century, and it is used here to distinguish them from individuals or units who volunteered only for the duration of a given war.

## 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
# Influence

"My friend leaned o'er the flowery brink"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1907), "Influence" in Harper's Monthly Magazine (August 1907).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1909), "Influence" in Lyrics of Life (1909).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), "Influence" in Poems I.

## References

* ↑ View this version at Google Books.
# Inferno (Dante)

* related portals: Italian literature.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
Inferno is the first part of Dante's Divine Comedy.
See also the list of English translations of Dante's Divine Comedy on the English Wikipedia.
English-language translations of Inferno include:
* Inferno (1782), blank verse translation by Charles Rogers
* A Translation of the Inferno of Dante Alighieri (1785), a rhymed stanza translation by Henry Boyd
* Inferno (1814), a blank verse translation by Henry Francis Cary
* Inferno (1867), a blank terzine translation by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# James Beam Distilling Company v. Georgia/Concurrence Scalia

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions White Blackmun Scalia
* Dissenting Opinion O'Connor
Justice SCALIA, with whom Justice MARSHALL and Justice BLACKMUN join, concurring in the judgment.
I think I agree, as an abstract matter, with Justice SOUTER's reasoning, but that is not what leads me to agree with his conclusion. I would no more say that what he calls "selective prospectivity" is impermissible because it produces inequitable results than I would say that the coercion of confessions is impermissible for that reason. I believe that the one, like the other, is impermissible simply because it is not allowed by the Constitution. Deciding between a constitutional course and an unconstitutional one does not pose a question of choice of law.
If the division of federal powers central to the constitutional scheme is to succeed in its objective, it seems to me that the fundamental nature of those powers must be preserved as that nature was understood when the Constitution was enacted. The Executive, for example, in addition to "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, § 3, has no power to bind private conduct in areas not specifically committed to his control by Constitution or statute; such a perception of "[t]he Executive power" may be familiar to other legal systems, but is alien to our own. So also, I think, "[t]he judicial Power of the United States" conferred upon this Court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish, Art. III, § 1, must be deemed to be the judicial power as understood by our common-law tradition. That is the power "to say what the law is," Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), not the power to change it. I am not so naive (nor do I think our forebears were) as to be unaware that judges in a real sense "make" law. But they make it as judges make it, which is to say as though they were "finding" it discerning what the law is, rather than decreeing what it is today changed to, or what it will tomorrow be. Of course this mode of action poses "difficulties of a . . . practical sort," ante, at 536, when courts decide to overrule prior precedent. But those difficulties are one of the understood checks upon judicial law making; to eliminate them is to render courts substantially more free to "make new law," and thus to alter in a fundamental way the assigned balance of responsibility and power among the three Branches.
For this reason, and not reasons of equity, I would find both "selective prospectivity" and "pure prospectivity" beyond our power.

## 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
# James Beam Distilling Company v. Georgia

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

## Concurring Opinions

    White
    Blackmun
    Scalia

## Dissenting Opinion

    O'Connor
United States Supreme Court
501 U.S. 529
James Beam Distilling Company v. Georgia
No. 89-680 Argued: Oct. 30, 1990. --- Decided: June 20, 1991
Syllabus
Before 1985, Georgia law imposed an excise tax on imported liquor at a rate double that imposed on liquor manufactured from Georgia-grown products. In 1984, this Court, in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 104 S.Ct. 3049, 82 L.Ed.2d 200, held that a similar Hawaii law violated the Commerce Clause. Petitioner, a manufacturer of Kentucky Bourbon, thereafter filed an action in Georgia state court, seeking a refund of taxes it paid under Georgia's law for 1982, 1983, and 1984. The court declared the statute unconstitutional, but refused to apply its ruling retroactively, relying on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296, which held that a decision will be applied prospectively where it displaces a principle of law on which reliance may reasonably have been placed, and where prospectivity is on balance warranted by its effect on the operation of the new rule and by the inequities that might otherwise result from retroactive application. The State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
259 Ga. 363, 382 S.E.2d 95 (Ga.1989), reversed and remanded.

## 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
# James Bowdoin

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "James Bowdoin."
* 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.
* "Bowdoin," in The American Cyclopædia (1879)
* "Bowdoin, James," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Bowdoin, James," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
# Insurance Company v. Ritchie

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
72 U.S. 541
Insurance Company v. Ritchie
THIS was an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Massachusetts, dismissing a bill in equity, filed by the Merchants' Insurance Company, a corporation created by the laws of Massachusetts, and having its place of business in the city of Boston in that State, against James Ritchie, and E. L. Pierce, the assessor and collector of internal revenue for the third collection district of that same commonwealth, and both citizens of it, praying that they might be enjoined from the distraint and sale of the complainant's property for non-payment of a certain tax. The defendants demurred, for the reason that the bill disclosed no ground for equitable relief. The demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed.
Coming here, the case was elaborately argued by Mr. Stanbery, A. G., and Mr. Ashton, Assistant A. G., for the assessor and collector, and by Messrs. S. Bartlett and F. W. Palfrey (by brief) for the Insurance Company; the argument turning chiefly on the matter of public policy on the one hand, in allowing officers of the government to be embarrassed in the prompt collection of its revenues by the strong and summary process of injunction; and on the other hand, on the matter of private rights of the citizen in precluding him from adequate remedy against clearly illegal proceedings of government agents in the assessment and collection of these revenues.
But a preliminary question, the question namely, whether the suit as an internal revenue case could, under the statutes of the United States as now existing, be maintained at all,-the parties all being citizens of the same State,-cut off decision on these points, and renders a report of the principal argument irrelative.
The CHIEF JUSTICE 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
# Insurance Company v. Stinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 25
Insurance Company v. Stinson
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Charles T. Russell and Mr. Charles T. Russell, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Robert D. Smith, contra.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Insurance Company v. Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 146
Insurance Company v. Railroad Company
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. John G. Chandler for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. John G. Williams, contra.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN 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
# Jock

There's a soldier that's been doing of his share In the fighting up and down and round about. He's continually marching here and there, And he's fighting, morning in and morning out. The Boer, you see, he generally runs; But sometimes, when he hides behind a rock, And we can't make no impression with the guns, Oh, then you'll hear the order, "Send for Jock!"
Yes -- it's Jock -- Scotch Jock. He's the fellow that can give or take a knock. For he's hairy and he's hard, And his feet are by the yard, And his face is like the face what's on a clock. But when the bullets fly you will mostly hear the cry -- "Send for Jock!"
The Cavalry have gun and sword and lance; Before they choose their weapon, why, they're dead. The Mounted Foot are hampered in advance By holding of their helmets on their head. And, when the Boer has dug himself a trench And placed his Maxim gun behind a rock, These mounted heroes -- pets of Johnny French -- They have to sit and wait and send for Jock!
Yes, the Jocks -- Scotch Jocks, With their music that'd terrify an ox! When the bullets kick the sand You can hear the sharp command -- "Forty-Second! At the double! Charge the rocks!" And the charge is like a hood When they warmed the Highland blood Of the Jocks!
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