OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Wells v. McGregor

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 188
Wells v. McGregor
MOTION, by Mr. Robert Leech, to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Montana; the case being thus:
The 22d section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, gives writs of error to Circuit Courts of the United States from this court in cases of 'final judgment,' in certain cases specified.
The 1st section of the act of September 29th, 1789, entitled 'An act to regulate process in the courts of the United States,' provides that 'all writs and processes issuing from a Supreme or Circuit Court shall bear the teste of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.'
The 9th section of the act of Congress organizing the Territory of Montana, approved May 26th, 1864, provides that 'writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the Supreme Court of said Territory, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner, and under the same regulations, as from the Circuit Courts of the United States.'
The present writ of error, as the record showed, was brought to revise the decision of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana affirming an order of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the Territory, by which a motion to set aside a sheriff's return to an execution was allowed, and an alias execution awarded. The writ bore the teste of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana.
Mr. Leech in support of his motion contended, that only 'final judgments' could come here, and that what was brought here was not one; and that the teste should have been by the Chief Justice of this court.
Mr. F. A. Dick, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE:
We have often held that such orders as that which the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana affirmed, are within the discretion of the inferior court. They are not final judgments, within the meaning of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Of course they are not within the meaning of the 9th section of the organic act of the Territory. It appears also that the writ of error bears the teste of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana, and not the teste of the Chief Justice of this court. But the statute makes teste of the Chief Justice indispensable, and we have no power to change its requirements.

## Notes

* ↑ Stat. at Large, 84.
* ↑ Ib. 93.
* ↑ 13 Stat. at Large, 88, 89.
* ↑ Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wallace, 676 Phillips's Practice, 66.
* ↑ 13 Stat. at Large, 89.
* ↑ 1 Stat. at Large, 93.
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
# Wells v. Rockefeller

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Fortas

## Dissenting Opinions

    Harlan
    White
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 542
Wells v. Rockefeller
Argued: Jan. 13, 1969. --- Decided: April 7, 1969
Robert B. McKay, New York City, for appellant.
George D. Zuckerman, New York City, for appellees.
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
# Wells v. Fox

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
WELLS et al. Appellants, verʃus FOX.
T
Sergeant though that the queftion ought to be tried upon a feigned iffue, or under an ejectment ; to either of which he would agree.
But, by SHIPPEN, Preʃident.–A feigned iffue can only determine, whether the Regulators have done right or not ; cannot determine the title, and finally fettle the matter. For this reafon we think it proper to try the queftion by ejectment.
Lewis and Wilcoks faid, the practice in the Supreme Court had been conformably to the opinion of the Preʃident here.
# Wells v. McGregor/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
80 U.S. 188
Wells v. McGregor
On both grounds, therefore, the writ of error must be
DISMISSED.

## 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
# Wells v. Rockefeller/Concurrence Fortas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Fortas
* Dissenting Opinions Harlan White
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 542
Wells v. Rockefeller
Argued: Jan. 13, 1969. --- Decided: April 7, 1969
Mr. Justice FORTAS, concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the Court and in its opinion except to the extent that the opinion relies upon the Court's opinion in the Missouri redistricting cases, Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519, which I have not joined for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in those cases.
New York does not attempt to defend its plan as a good-faith effort to achieve districts of approximate equality. It argues that it devised a plan based upon the grouping of districts into regions. I agree with the majority that, for purposes of the congressional districting here involved, the State may not substantially or grossly disregard population or residence figures in order to recognize regional groupings within the State. See my dissent in Avery v. Midland County, 90 U.S. 474, 495, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 1126,
Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART joins, dissenting.

## 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
# Wells v. Nickles

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 444
Wells v. Nickles
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. J. G. Sutherland and
Mr. J. G. Sutherland and Mr. J. R. McBride for the plaintiff.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# Wells v. Crane/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
150 U.S. 84
Wells v. Crane
The writ of error is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon the authority of Chapman v. Goodnow's Adm'r, 123 U.S. 540, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 211.

## 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
# Young Hunters of the Lake

Third book in the Boy Hunters Club series
YOUNG HUNTERS
OF THE LAKE
Or Out With Rod and Gun
BY
CAPTAIN RALPH BONEHILL
AUTHOR OF "FOUR BOY HUNTERS," "GUNS AND SNOWSHOES," "WITH BOONE ON THE FRONTIER," ETC.
ILLUSTRATED
NEW YORK CUPPLES & LEON COMPANY
"A pickerel!" cried Snap, "and a beauty"—Page 67.
CONTENTS
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# In a Winter City/Chapter 13

CHAPTER XIII.
A month later Paolo della Rocca led his wife through what had once been his mother's chambers at Palestrina, and which were now prepared for her, with all their wide windows unclosed and looking out to the rose and golden afternoon glories of the bright south-west.
In the little oratory, which opened out of the bed-chamber, there was hung an altar picture; it was the picture of San Cipriano il Mago.
"Take it as my marriage gift," he murmured to her. "You threw away your magic wand and renounced the world for me,—oh, my love, my love! God grant you the Saints' reward!"
​She laid her hands upon his heart, and leant her cheek upon them.
"My reward is here."
"And you will never repent?"
"Did Cyprian repent when he broke his earthly bonds and gained eternal life? Once I was blind, but now I see. The world is nothing:—Love is enough!"
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
# Young India (1916)/Appendix 1

Layout 2
APPENDICES
I
EXTRACTS FROM SIR HENRY COTTON’S
“NEW INDIA.”
Feudatory Chiefs Powerless. “ It would perhaps be ungenerous to probe too narrowly the dependent position and consequent involuntary action of the feudatory chiefs. They are powerless to protect themselves. There is no judicial authority to which they can appeal. There is no public opinion to watch their interests. Technically independent under the suzerainty of the Empire, they are practically held in complete subjection. Their rank and honours depend on the pleasure of a British Resident at their Court, and on the secret and irresponsible mandates of a Foreign Office at Simla” (page 34)Gross Insults to Indians. “ That intense Anglo-Saxon spirit of self-approbation which is unpleasantly perceptible in England itself, and is so often offensive among vulgar Englishmen on the Continent, very soon becomes rampant in India.
“There are innumerable instances in which pedestrians have been abused and struck because they have not lowered their umbrellas at the sight of a sahib on the highway. There are few Indian gentlemen even of the highest rank who have not had experience of gross insults when travelling by railway, because Englishmen object to sit in the same carriage with a native” (pages 68-69).
# Young India (1916)/A Short Bibliography of Books in English

Layout 2
A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BOOKS IN ENGLISH
Books by Englishmen
“New Spirit in India” by H. W. Nevinson.
“The Awakening in India” by J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.
“India, Impressions and Suggestions” by J. Keir Hardie, M.P.
“New India” by Sir Henry Cotton (once an M.P.), late of the Indian Civil Service.
“Allen Octavian Hume” by Sir W. Wedderburn, late of the Indian Civil Service (once an M.P.).
“Prosperous British India” by Mr. William Digby, C.I.E.
“India and the Empire” by Mrs. Annie Besant.
“Indian Nationalism” by Edwyn Bevan.
“Bureaucratic Government” by Bernard Houghton (late of the Indian Civil Service).
“Lord Curzon a Failure.” by C. J. O’Donnell (late of the Indian Civil Service).
“Causes of Indian Discontent” by C. J. O’Donnell (late of the Indian Civil Service).
“The Indian Ryot” by Sir W. Wedderburn.
“The Skeleton at the Jubilee Feast” by Sir W. Wedderburn.
“Congress Green Books” (84, 85, Palace Chambers, Westminster, London).
“The New Nationalist Movement in India,” by Dr. J. T. Sunderland.
BOOKS BY INDIANS
“ Poverty or Un-British Rule in India ” by Dadabhai Naoroji.
“ India Under Early British Rule ” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“ India in the Victorian Age ” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“ Famines and Land Assessment ” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“England and India ” (Indian Progress, 1785-1885) by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“ The Civilization of India ” by R. C. Dutt, C.I.E.
“ Speeches of the Honourable Mr. G. K. Gokhale.”
“ The Swadeshi, a Symposium.”
“ Recent Indian Finance” by Wacha.
“ The National Evolution ” by A. C. Mazumdar.
“ The Indian National Congress.”
“ Speeches of Sir P. M. Mehta.”
“ The Story of My Deportation” by Lajpat Rai.
“ The Alipore [Bomb Case] Trial.”
PERIODICALS
The Modern Review (monthly). Calcutta.
The Indian Review (monthly). Madras.
The Hindustan Review (monthly). Allahabad.
India (the British Organ of the Indian National Congress, weekly). London.
# In re Alix/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
166 U.S. 136
In re Alix
John L. Mills filed his libel in the district court of the United States for the district of New Jersey on the 14th day of September, A. D. 1896, against the steamer Allegheny and her cargo, to recover salvage; and such proceedings were thereafter had thereon as resulted in a decree in favor of the libelant, December 2, 1896. An order for the sale of the steamer and cargo was entered December 15th. A motion to vacate this order was made on behalf of Gustave Alix, master of the Belgian steamer Caucase, which was denied December 21st. The sale took place December 22, and was confirmed December 30, 1896.
On December 26, 1896, Alix filed a petition of intervention in said cause, alleging that he had filed a libel in admiralty against the Allegheny, October 22, 1894, in the district court of the United States for the district of Delaware; that the steamer had been attached by the marshal of that district in December of that year; and that the district court for the district of New Jersey had no jurisdiction.
All the material allegations of the petition of intervention were denied by the answer thereto, and issues of fact were raised on which the question of jurisdiction depended.
Thereupon, on January 11, 1897, a petition or suggestion was filed by Alix in this court, seeking the issue of a writ of prohibition to the judge of the district court for the district of New Jersey to restrain him from enforcing any of the orders or decrees by him theretofore made in the suit of said Mills, or proceeding further therein. A rule to show cause was granted, to which return has been duly made.
The settled rules in reference to the writ of prohibition were thus laid down in Re Rice, 155 U.S. 396, 402, 15 Sup. Ct. 149: 'Where it appears that the court whose action is sought to be prohibited has clearly no jurisdiction of the cause originally, or of some collateral matter arising therein, a party who has objected to the jurisdiction at the outset, and has no other remedy, is entitled to a writ of prohibition, as a matter of right. But where there is another legal remedy, by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where the application is made by a stranger, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary. Nor is the granting of the writ obligatory where the case has gone to sentence, and the want of jurisdiction does not appear upon the face of the proceedings. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 173, 6 Sup. Ct. 570; In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 495, 12 Sup. Ct. 453.'
Tested by these rules, we are clear that a proper case is not made for awarding the writ of prohibition.
Writ denied.

## 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 re Anastaplo/Dissent Brennan

Cite as: In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82, 116 (1961) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Black Brennan
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.
I join MR. JUSTICE BLACK's dissent. I add only that I think the judgment must also be reversed on the authority of Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, ante, p. 80.

## 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 re Aimster Copyright Litigation

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate. The opinion was written by Judge Richard Posner, known for his publications on law and economics, and followed closely on the heels of the Ninth Circuit's decision in A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
* 334 F.3d 643
* IN RE: AIMSTER COPYRIGHT LITIGATION. APPEAL OF: JOHN DEEP, Defendant.
* v.
* No. 02-4125
* United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
* June 4, 2003, Argued
* June 30, 2003, Decided
For RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, ZOMBA RECORDING CORPORATION, CAROLINE RECORDS, INCORPORATED, EMI CHRISTIAN MUSIC GROUP, INCORPORATED, NARADA PRODUCTIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs - Appellees: Bradley Rochlen, KATTEN, MUCHIN, ZAVIS, ROSEMAN, Chicago, IL USA. Russell Frackman, MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP, Los Angeles, CA.
For JOHN DEEP, Defendant - Appellant: William L. Montague, Jr., STOLL, KEENON & PARK, Lexington, KY USA.
Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
# In re Anastaplo

Cite as: In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82 (1961).
Supreme Court of the United States
366 U.S. 82
IN RE ANASTAPLO
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois
No. 58. Argued: Dec. 14, 1960 --- Decided: Apr. 24, 1961

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Brennan
A rule of the Supreme Court of Illinois provides that applicants shall be admitted by it to the practice of law after satisfactory examination by the Board of Examiners and certification of qualification by a Committee on Character and Fitness. In hearings before that Committee, petitioner refused to answer any questions pertaining to his membership in the Communist Party, not on the ground of possible self-incrimination, but on the ground that such inquiries violated his freedom of speech and association. The Committee declined to certify him as qualified for admission to the Bar, solely on the ground that his refusals to answer such questions had obstructed the Committee's performance of its functions. The State Supreme Court denied him admission to practice. Held: Denial of petitioner's application for admission to the Bar on this ground did not violate his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 83–97.
(a) It is not constitutionally impermissible for a State to adopt a rule that an applicant will not be admitted to the practice of law if, and so long as, by refusing to answer materiai questions, he obstructs a bar examining committee in its proper functions of interrogating and cross-examining him upon his qualifications. Konigsberg v. State Bar, ante, p. 36. P. 88.
(b) Petitioner was not privileged under the Fourteenth Amendment to refuse to answer questions concerning membership in the Communist Party. Konigsberg v. State Bar, supra. P. 89.
(c) The fact that there was no independent evidence that petitioner had ever been a member of the Communist Party did not prevent the State, acting in good faith, from making this inquiry in an investigation of this kind. Pp. 89–90.
(d) During the hearings before the Committee, petitioner was given adequate warning as to the consequences of his refusal to answer the Committee's questions relating to membership in the Communist Party. Pp. 90–94.
(e) In the circumstances of this case, petitioner's exclusion from the Bar on the ground that he had obstructed the Committee in the performance of its duties Was not arbitrary or discriminatory. Pp. 94–97.
18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429, affirmed.
Petitioner argued the cause and filed a brief pro se.
William C. Wines, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for the State of Illinois, respondent. With him on the brief were William L. Guild, Attorney General, and Raymond S. Sarnow and A. Zola Groves, Assistant Attorneys General.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Roscoe T. Steffen for the American Civil Liberties Union and by David Scribner, Leonard B. Boudin, Ben Margolis, William B. Murrish and Charles Stewart for the National Lawyers Guild.

## 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 re Application of Burwell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 521
In re Application of Burwell
Argued: April 2, 1956. ---
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
# In re Alix

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
166 U.S. 136
In re Alix
Horace L. Cheyney, for petitioner.
Curtis Tilton, for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER 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
# Zodiac Killer letter, October 27th 1970

October 27th 1970. Claims 14 kills. Mailed to Paul Avery of the San Francisco Chronicle; the name was misspelled Averly. The killer signed with the Zodiac, the Z he used in his first letters and a sign of Taurus that he only used one other time. While he lists four ways to kill somebody, he was never known to have used a rope or fire.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) between 1929 and 1977 (inclusive) without a copyright notice.
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
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) between 1929 and 1977 (inclusive) without a copyright notice.
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
# Zodiac Killer letter, San Francisco Examiner, July 31st 1969

July 31st 1969
​Dear Editor
I am the killer of the 2 teenagers last Christmass at Lake Herman & the girl last 4th of July. To prove this I shall state some facts which only I & the police know.
Christmass
* brand name of ammo - Super X
* 10 shots fired
* Boy was on his back with feet to car
* Girl was lyeing on right side feet to west
4th of July
* girl was wearing patterned pants
* boy was also shot in knee
* ammo was made by Western
Here is a cipher or that is part of one. The other 2 parts are being mailed to the Vallejo Times & S.F. Chronicle
I want you to print this cipher on the frunt page by Fry afternoon Aug 1-69. If you ​do not print this cipher, I will go on a kill rampage Fry night. This will last the whole weekend, I will cruse around killing people who are alone at night untill Sun Night or untill I kill a dozen people.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) between 1929 and 1977 (inclusive) without a copyright notice.
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
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) between 1929 and 1977 (inclusive) without a copyright notice.
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