OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ritchie v. Forrest

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
27 U.S. 243
Ritchie v. Forrest
THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the county of Washington; in which court the proceedings of the orphans' court of that county, appointing a guardian to the estate of a minor, had been reversed on appeal, and the court had proceeded to pass such a decree as it adjudged the orphans' court should have passed. From this decree of the circuit court, the appellant came before this Court, and he sought to sustain the decision of the orphans' court.
The appellant, under an order of the orphans' court, had been appointed the guardian of John W. Ott; and had, in pursuance of the same order, entered into a bond, as guardian of the said John W. Ott, in the penal sum of $10,000, with sureties.
The case was argued upon the whole of the matter contained in the decree, by Mr C. C. Lee and Mr Chambers, for the appellant; and by Mr Bradley for the appellees. As the Court did not decide but upon one of the points in the case presented by the counsel, the arguments upon the others are omitted.
An objection was made by the counsel of the appellees, that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to authorise an appeal from the circuit court of Washington county to this Court. The whole question to be decided on this appeal was, whether the appellant of the appellees were legally entitled to the guardianship of the person and estate of John W. Ott, a minor; whose estate, it was admitted, was of considerable value. It was also admitted, that neither the appellant nor the appellees had any interest in the estate, except that which would be obtained from the compensation they might derive for their labours and responsibilities, as guardians of the minor.
The counsel for the appellant contended, that the right of appeal was complete, as the property which would come into the hands of the guardian exceeded two thousand dollars; and the bond given by him, by order of the orphans' court, was in the sum of ten thousand dollars.
The law is well settled, that a trustee may appeal when the property under his charge is of sufficient amount, although he has no interest whatever in the trust estate. A guardian is a trustee, and should be considered in the same relations to the property of his ward.
Mr Bradley, for the appellees, submitted the question of the right of appeal to the Court, presenting only the suggestion that the pecuniary benefit of the appellant from the estate, could not, under any circumstances, amount to one thousand dollars. Whatever claims on the estate of his ward the appellant might have, for services to be rendered hereafter; in the state of things at the time of the appeal, as he had never acted as guardian, he had no pecuniary claims whatsoever.
Mr Chief 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
# Risty v. Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 378
Risty v. Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 7, 8, 1926. --- Decided: March 1, 1926
[Syllabus from pages 378-380 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Benjamin I. Salinger, of Carroll, Iowa, and N. B. Bartlett and E. O. Jones, both of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellants.
Mr. C. O. Bailey, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellees Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. and City of Sioux Falls.
Messrs. E. S. Stringer, of St. Paul, Minn., W. F. Dickinson, of Chicago, Ill., and Thomas D. O'Brien and Alexander E. Horn, both of St. Paul, Minn., for appellee Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
Messrs. R. M. Campbell and John H. Roemer, both of Chicago, Ill., and Harold E. Judge, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellee Northern States Power Co.
Messrs. E. L. Grantham, of Aberdeen, S. D., and C. O. Bailey, of Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellee Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
Messrs. Harold E. Judge, of Sioux Falls, S. D., and F. G. Dorety, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellee Great Northern Ry. Co.
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
# Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 114
Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory
Messrs. Saul Stone and Paul O. H. Pigman, for appellant.
Messrs. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, George M. Ponder, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and N. Cleburn Dalton, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee McCrory.
Mr. Frank H. Peterman, for appellees Blu-Ribon Dairies, Inc. and others.
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
# Schwenkfelder Hymnology/Appendix

APPENDIX.
Bibliography.
Christian August Salig: Vollständige Historic der Augspurgischen Confession. Halle, 1735.
Johann Philip Fresenius: Bewährte Nachrichten. Frankfurt, 1747-51.
Erläutcrung für Herrn Caspar Schzvenkfeld und die Zugethancn seiner Lehre. Jauer, 1771. Second edition. Sumnytaun, 1830.
Hermann Adelbert Daniel: Thesaurus Hymnologicus. Leipzig. 1855-56.
A. F. H. Schneider: Zur Literatur der Schwenkfeldischen Liedcrdichter bis Daniel Sudermann. Berlin, 1857.
Oswald Kadelbach: Ausfuehrlicke Geschichte Kaspar von Schwenkfelds und der Schwenkfelder. Lauban, i860.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben: Geschichte des dcutschen Kirchenliedes. Hannover, 1861.
Philipp Wackernagel: Das Deutsche Kirchcnlied von der ältesten Zeit bis an Anfang des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1864-77.
Emil Koch: Geschichte des Kirchcnlieds und Kirchengesangs. Stuttgart, 1866-76.
Catherine Winkworth: Christian Singers of Germany. London, 1869.
Richard Bingham: Hymnologia Christiana Latina. London, 1871.
F. A. March: Latin Hymns, with English Notes. New York, 1875 and 1883.
A. F. W. Fischer: Kirchenlieder-Lexicon. Gotha, 1878.
C. Heydrick: The Schwenkfelders: An Historical Sketch. In Genealogical Record of the Descendants of the Schzvenkfelders. Manayunk, 1879.
J. H. Dubbs: Early German Hymnology of Pennsylvania. In Reformed Quarterly Review (1882).
C. R. Hildeburn: A Century of Printing. The Issues of the Press in Pennsylvania, 1685-1784. Philadelphia, 1885-86.
T- E. Prescott: Christian Hymns and Hymn Writers. Cambridge, 1886.
​S. W. Duffield: The Latin Hymn-writers and Their Hymns. Edited and completed by Prof. R. E. Thompson, D. D. New York, 1889.
John Julian: A Dictionary of Hymnology. New York, 1892.
O. Seidensticker: First Century of German Printing in America. Philadelphia, 1893.
J. Tavlor Hamilton: Some Moravian Hymn Writers. (Moravian Visitor, Vol. 3, No. 7.) Easton, 1896.
S. W. Pennypacker: The Settlement of Gcrmantown. Philadelphia, 1899.
M. D. Learned: Historische Anmerkungen. In Americana Germanica. Vol. II., No. 1.
J. Taylor Hamilton: History of the Moravian Church. Bethlehem, 1900.
H. W. Kriebel: The Schwenkfelders in Pennsylvania. Lancaster, 1904.
Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum. Volume I. Leipzig, 1907.
Hallesche Nachrichten. (1750 et seq.)
Blätter fur Hymnologie.
# Schwegmann Bros v. Calvert Distillers Corp.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 384
Schwegmann Bros v. Calvert Distillers Corp.
Argued: April 9-10, 1951. --- Decided: May 21, 1951
See 341 U.S. 956, 71 S.Ct. 1011.
On Writs of
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Messrs. Saul Stone, John Minor Wisdom, New Orleans, La., for petitioners.
Mr. Monte M. Lemann, New Orleans, La., for respondents.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 114
Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## 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
# Schmerber v. California/Dissent Fortas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Warren Douglas Fortas
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 757
Schmerber v. California
Argued: April 25, 1966. --- Decided: June 20, 1966
Mr. Justice FORTAS, dissenting.
I would reverse. In my view, petitioner's privilege against self-incrimination applies. I would add that, under the Due Process Clause, the State, in its role as prosecutor, has no right to extract blood from an accused or anyone else, over his protest. As prosecutor, the State has no right to commit any kind of violence upon the person, or to utilize the results of such a tort, and the extraction of blood, over protest, is an act of violence. Cf. Chief Justice Warren's dissenting opinion in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 440, 77 S.Ct. 408, 412, 1 L.Ed.2d 448.

## 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
# Schlosser v. Lesher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
1788.
SCHLOSSER verʃus LESHER.
I
Levy prayed that, if the caufe was continued, it might be under a rule to try next term, or Non Pros ; and mentioned a cafe argued in this Court by Lewis, when it was fo ruled.
Ingerʃol objected, that the rule for trial or Non Pros, was granted upon fome laches on the part of the Plaintiff ; and that there was no idea of that kind in the prefent cafe. He added, that the practice in the Supreme Court was contrary to the rule prayed for.
by the court.− Let the rule be entered : But this will not preclude the Plaintiff from fhewing reafonable caufe of delay, at the next term.
# Schlude v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1963), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the accrual method, taxpayers must include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes, and contract installments falling due but remaining unpaid during that year. In doing so, the Court tossed aside the matching principle in favor of the earlier-of test. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 128
Schlude v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Argued: Dec. 10, 1962. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1963
Carl F. Bauersfeld, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Warren Douglas Fortas
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 757
Schmerber v. California
Argued: April 25, 1966. --- Decided: June 20, 1966
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
I adhere to the views of The Chief Justice in his dissent in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 440, 77 S.Ct. 408, 412, 1 L.Ed.2d 448, and to the views I stated in my dissent in that case (id., 442, 77 S.Ct. 413) and add only a word.
We are dealing with the right of privacy which, since the Breithaupt case, we have held to be within the penumbra of some specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510. Thus, the Fifth Amendment marks 'a zone of privacy' which the Government may not force a person to surrender. Id., 484, 85 S.Ct. 1681. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the right of the people to be secure 'in their persons.' Ibid. No clearer invasion of this right of privacy can be imagined than forcible bloodletting of the kind involved here.

## 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
# Schmerber v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a State may, over the suspect's protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violating the suspect's Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution rights. (The Court did not address the Fourth Amendment question because of a previous decision in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957); however, that decision was based on the since over-ruled holding that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule was not incorporated to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.) Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinions

    Warren
    Douglas
    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 757
Schmerber v. California
Argued: April 25, 1966. --- Decided: June 20, 1966
Thomas M. McGurrin, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner.
Edward L. Davenport, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
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
# Republic Act No. 6734/Article V

* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Source: Supplement to the Official Gazette. Vol. 85, No. 34. Manila. National Printing Office. 1989. p. 53.
Layout 2
Article V
POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
Section 1. The Regional Government shall exercise powers and functions necessary for the proper governance and development of all the constituent units within the Autonomous Region consistent with the constitutional policy on regional and local autonomy and decentralization: Provided, That nothing herein shall authorize the diminution of the powers and functions already enjoyed by local government units.
Sec. 2. The Autonomous Region is a corporate entity with jurisdiction in all matters devolved to it by the Constitution and this Organic Act as herein enumerated:
(1) Administrative organization;
(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family and property relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
(7) Educational policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage;
(9) Powers, functions and responsibilities now being exercised by the departments of the National Government except:
       (a) Foreign affairs;
       (b) National defense and security;
       (c) Postal service;
       (d) Coinage, and fiscal and monetary policies;
       (e) Administration of justice;
       (f) Quarantine;
       (g) Customs and tariff;
       (h) Citizenship;
       (i) Naturalization, immigration and deportation;
       (j) General auditing, civil service and elections;
       (k) Foreign trade;
       (l) Maritime, land and air transportation and communications that affect areas outside the Autonomous Region; and
       (m) Patents, trademarks, tradenames, and copyrights; and
(10) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the Region.
Sec. 3. The Regional Government may exercise the power of eminent domain.
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Republic Act No. 6734/Article IV

* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Source: Supplement to the Official Gazette. Vol. 85, No. 34. Manila. National Printing Office. 1989. p. 52.
Layout 2
Article IV
DEVOLUTION OF POWERS
Section 1. The fundamental rights and duties of the people in the Autonomous Region are those established in the Constitution and this Organic Act.
Sec. 2. The powers devolved to the Autonomous Region shall be exercised through the Regional Assembly, the Regional Governor, and the special courts as provided in this Act.
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Republic Act No. 6734/Article I

* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Source: Supplement to the Official Gazette. Vol. 85, No. 34. Manila. National Printing Office. 1989. p. 50.
Layout 2
Article I
NAME AND PURPOSE
Section 1. The name of the Autonomous Region shall be the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao unless provided otherwise by Congress upon the recommendation of the Regional Legislative Assembly.
Sec. 2. It is the purpose of this Organic Act to establish the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, to provide its basic structure of government within the framework of the Constitution and national sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines, and to ensure the peace and equality before the law of all people in the Autonomous Region.
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Republic Act No. 6734

* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Source: Supplement to the Official Gazette. Vol. 85, No. 34. Manila. National Printing Office. 1989. pp. 50–85.
Layout 2
H. No. 22929 S. No. 997
Republic Act No. 6734
* Preamble
* Article I Name and Purpose
* Article II The Autonomous Region
* Article III Guiding Principles and Policies
* Article IV Devolution of Powers
* Article V Powers of Government
* Article VI Inter-Governmental Relations
* Article VII The Legislative Department
* Article VIII The Executive Department
* Article IX Administration of Justice
* Article X Fiscal Autonomy
* Article XI Ancestral Domain, Ancestral Lands and Agrarian Reform
* Article XII Urban and Rural Planning and Development
* Article XIII Economy and Patrimony
* Article XIV Public Order and Security
* Article XV Education, Science and Technology, Arts and Sports
* Article XVI Social Justice, Services, Institutions, and Other Concerns
* Article XVII General Provisions
* Article XVIII Amendments or Revisions
* Article XIX Transitory Provisions
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Republic Act No. 6734/Article II

* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Source: Supplement to the Official Gazette. Vol. 85, No. 34. Manila. National Printing Office. 1989. pp. 50–51.
Layout 2
Article II
THE AUTONOMOUS REGION Area and Seat of Government
Section 1. (1) There is hereby created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, to be composed of provinces and cities voting favorably in the plebiscite called for the purpose, in accordance with Section 18, Article X of the Constitution.
(2) The plebiscite shall be conducted in the provinces of Basilan, Cotabato, Davao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Palawan, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur, and the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog, General Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa, and Zamboanga.
Sec. 2. The Regional Legislative Assembly, hereinafter referred to as the Regional Assembly, shall fix by law the permanent seat of government for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, taking into consideration accessibility and efficiency in carrying out its mandate under this Act: Provided, That the provisional seat of the Regional Government shall be in Cotabato City.
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Republic Act No. 6734/Article VI

* related portals: Philippines.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Source: Supplement to the Official Gazette. Vol. 85, No. 34. Manila. National Printing Office. 1989. p. 54.
Layout 2
Article VI
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Section 1. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over the Regional Government, including the local government units therein, directly or through the Regional Governor, to ensure that national and regional laws are faithfully executed.
Sec. 2. The Regional Government shall maintain close coordination with the National Government for the orderly management of the special courts within the Autonomous Region.
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse