OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# California v. Thompson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 109
California v. Thompson
Argued: April 3, 1941. --- Decided: April 28, 1941
Messrs. William J. McFarland and Ray L. Chesebro, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 110 intentionally omitted]
No appearance for respondent.
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
# California v. Trombetta/Concurrence O'Connor

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion O'Connor
Justice O'Connor, concurring.
Rules concerning preservation of evidence are generally matters of state, not federal constitutional law. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 352–353 (1969). The failure to preserve breath samples does not render a prosecution fundamentally unfair, and thus cannot render breath-analysis tests inadmissible as evidence against the accused. Id., at 356. Similarly, the failure to employ alternative methods of testing blood-alcohol concentrations is of no due [p492] process concern, both because persons are presumed to know their rights under the law and because the existence of tests not used in no way affects the fundamental fairness of the convictions actually obtained. I understand the Court to state no more than these well-settled propositions. Accordingly, I join both its opinion and judgment.
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
# California v. Taylor

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 553
California v. Taylor
Argued: April 2, 1957. --- Decided: June 3, 1957
Mr. Herbert E. Wenig, Asst. Atty. Gen. of California, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. Burke Williamson, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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
# Bush v. Gore/Certiorari/Order

OCTOBER TERM, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States
DECEMBER 9, 2000
Certiorari Granted
No. 00-949 (00A504). Bush et al. v. Gore et al. Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, case No. SC00-2431, is hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. In addition, the application for stay is treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, and certiorari is granted. Briefs of the parties, not to exceed 50 pages, are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 4 p.m., Sunday, December 10, 2000. This Court's Rule 29.2 is suspended in this case. Briefs may be filed in compliance with Rule 33.2 to be replaced as soon as possible with briefs prepared in compliance with Rule 33.1. Case set for oral argument on Monday, December 11, 2000, at 11:00 a.m., and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 772 So. 2d 1243.
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
# Bush v. Gore/Certiorari/Concurrence

Justice Scalia, concurring.
Though it is not customary for the Court to issue an opinion in connection with its grant of a stay, I believe a brief response is necessary to Justice Stevens' dissent. I will not address the merits of the case, since they will shortly be before us in the petition for certiorari that we have granted. It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that petitioners have a substantial probability of success.
On the question of irreparable harm, however, a few words are appropriate. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "[c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires. Another issue in the case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of letting the standard for determination of voters' intent–dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc.–vary from county to county, as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted by the Circuit Court, permits. If petitioners are correct that counting in this fashion is unlawful, permitting the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent an accurate recount from being conducted on a proper basis later, since it is generally agreed that each manual recount produces a degradation of the ballots, which renders a subsequent recount inaccurate.
For these reasons I have joined the Court's issuance of a stay, with a highly accelerated timetable for resolving this case on the merits.
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
# Burdick v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
* A pardoned man must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
* To do this, the pardoned man must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.
* A pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt', and accepting a pardon is 'an admission of guilt'.
United States v. Wilson established that it is possible to reject a (conditional) pardon, even for a capital sentence. Burdick affirmed that the same principle extends to unconditional pardons. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 79
Burdick v. United States
Argued: December 16, 1914. --- Decided: January 25, 1915
Messrs. Henry A. Wise and Henry W. Sackett for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 79-82 intentionally omitted]
Solicitor General Davis for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 82-84 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Burfenning v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 321
Burfenning v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. Railway Company
James W. Lawrence, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas Willson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER 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
# Burford v. Sun Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a new doctrine of abstention. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 315
Burford v. Sun Oil Company
Argued: April 14, 15, 1943. --- Decided: May 24, 1943
See 320 U.S. 214, 63 S.Ct. 1442, 87 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. James P. Hart and Ed Roy Simmons, both of Austin, Tex., for Burford et al.
Mr. J. A. Rauhut, of Austin, Tex., for Sun Oil Co. et al.
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
# Burns v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Burns v. United States."
* 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.
* Burns v. United States (274 U.S. 328)
* Burns v. United States (287 U.S. 216)
* Burns v. United States (501 U.S. 129)
See also United States v. Burns.
# Burns v. United States (274 U.S. 328)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States, Industrial Workers of the World.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 328
Burns v. United States (274 U.S. 328)
Argued: November 24, 1926. --- Decided: May 16, 1927
Messrs. R. W. Henderson, of Bakersfield, Cal., and Walter H. Pollak, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and Mr. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 329 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Burns v. United States (287 U.S. 216)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
287 U.S. 216
Burns v. United States (287 U.S. 216)
Argued: Nov. 15, 1932. --- Decided: Dec 5, 1932
Mr. Otto Christensen, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# Burns v. Richardson/Concurrence Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Harlan Stewart
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 73
Burns v. Richardson
Argued: Feb. 21, 1966. --- Decided: April 25, 1966
Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring in the judgment.
At the time Reynolds v. Sims was decided, I expressed the belief that 'the Equal Protection Clause demands but two basic attributes of any plan of state legislative apportionment. First, it demands that, in the light of the State's own characteristics and needs, the plan must be a rational one. Secondly, it demands that the plan must be such as not to permit the systematic frustration of the will of a majority of the electorate of the State.' Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Colorado General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, at pp. 753-754, 84 S.Ct. 1459, at p. 1483 (dissenting opinion).
Time has not changed my views. I still believe the Court misconceived the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause in Reynolds v. Sims and its companion cases. But so long as those cases remain the law, I must bow to them. And even under those decisions there is surely room for at least as much flexibility as the Court today accords to Hawaii. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.

## 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
# California v. Buzard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 386
California v. Buzard
Argued: Nov. 16, 1965. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1966
Doris H. Maier, Sacramento, Cal., for petitioner.
Thomas Keister Greer, Rocky Mount, Va., 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
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Anne García

From volume 6 of the work.
Better known as Venerable Anne of St. Bartholomew, Discalced Carmelite nun, companion of St. Teresa; b. at Almendral, Old Castile, 1 Oct. 1550; d. at Antwerp, 7 June, 1626. She was of humble origin and spent her youth in solitude and prayer tending the flocks. When she first went to Avila to enter the Carmelite convent, she was refused, being too young; for several years after, she suffered much at the hands of her brothers. Finally, overcoming all obstacles, she entered the convent as lay sister and made her vows on 15 August, 1572. For the next ten years she filled the post of infirmarian; her spirit of prayer and humility endeared her to St. Teresa, whose almost inseparable companion and secretary she now became. St. Teresa died in her arms at Alba de Tormes in 1582. Anne afterwards returned to Avila, took part in the foundation of a convent at Ocana (1595), and was one of the seven nuns selected for the introduction of the order into France (October, 1604). The French superiors, desirous of sending her as prioress to Pontoise, obliged her to pass from the state of lay sister to that of choir sister. So unusual a step met with the disapproval of her companions, but as St. Teresa had foretold it many years previously Anne offered no resistance. She had also been forewarned that the same step would cause her great sufferings, and indeed her priorship at Pontoise (January to September, 1605), Paris (October, 1605, to April, 1608), Tours May, 1608, to 1611) brought her heavy trials, not the least of which were differences with her superiors. At the expiration of her last term of office she returned to Paris, but warned by a vision, she proceeded to Belgium (October, 1611), where she founded and became prioress of a convent at Antwerp (27 Oct., 1612), which she governed to the end of her life. Twice she was instrumental in delivering the town from the hands of the enemy. In 1735, Anne of St. Bartholomew was declared Venerable; her process of beatification is not yet completed. Her writings include a number of letters still preserved, an autobiography now at Antwerp, edited by M. Bouix (Paris, 1869-72), and several treatises on spiritual matters, which appeared at Paris in 1646.
ENRIQUEZ, Historia de la Vida etc. (Brussels, 1632, Fr. tr. at Paris, 1633); La Vie et les instructions de la Ven. Mere Anne de S. Barthelemy, par un solitaire de Montaigne (Brussels, 1708; new ed., Paris, 1895).
B. Zimmerman.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Anne-Thérèse Guérin

From volume 7 of the work.
Anne-Thérèse (Mother Theodore) Guérin was beatified in Rome by Pope John Paul II on 25 October, 1998.
(In religion, Mother Theodore)
Born at Etables (Côte du Nord), Brittany, France, 2 October, 1798; died 14 May, 1856. She entered the Community of Sisters of Providence, Ruillé-sur-Loire, in 1823, received the religious habit and, by dispensation, made profession of vows, 8 September, 1824, being appointed the same day to the superiorship of the convent at Rennes. She was transferred to Soulaines in 1833, chosen foundress of St. Mary-of-the-Woods, Diocese of Vincennes, Indiana, in 1840, and at the same time declared superior general of the Sisters of Providence in America. The "Life and Life-Work" (1904) of [Bl.] Mother Theodore Guérin reveals her to have been, in the words of [James] Cardinal Gibbons, who furnishes the introduction:
   A woman of uncommon valour, one of those religious athletes whose life and teachings effect a spiritual fecundity that secures vast conquests to Christ and His holy Church. . . . Not the least glory encircling the diocese was its possessing such a magnanimous pioneer Religious. . . . She was distinctively a diplomat in religious organizations and eminently a teacher.
Father Charles Coppens, S.J., adds:
   She was a very superior woman both in natural gifts and in supernatural virtues. She lived a life of extraordinary union with God and conformity to His holy will, and she practised these virtues under the most difficult circumstances, where they required heroic faith, hope and charity. A perfect model of consummate virtue for all classes of the faithful, but especially for religious men and women.
[Bl.] Mother Theodore's mental attainments were of a superior order. The French Academy recognized her scholarship by according her medallion decorations. She was skilled in medicine and was a thorough theologian. As foundress of an institution whose expansion is evidence of her energetic and penetrating spirit, her whole history is a record of the power of holy souls who live but for the glory of God and the salvation of mankind.
Alma M. Le Brun.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Anne Hanson Dorsey

From volume 5 of the work.
Novelist, born at Georgetown, District of Columbia, U.S.A., 1815; died at Washington, 26 December, 1896. She was the daughter of the Rev. William McKenney, a chaplain in the United States Navy, and Chloe Ann Lanigan McKenney. In 1837 she was married to Lorenzo Dorsey, and in 1840 became a convert to the Catholic Faith. From this period, for more than half a century, she devoted her exceptional talent to Catholic fiction. She was a pioneer of light Catholic literature in the United States and a leading writer for the young. While deeply religious in tone, her stories are full of living interest and a knowledge of the world gained by clear insight and wide experience. Mrs. Dorsey's only son was killed while serving in the Union Army during the Civil War. She left three daughters. Pope Leo XIII twice sent her his benediction, and the University of Notre Dame conferred upon her the Lætare medal. Her chief works are: "The Student of Blenheim Forest"; "Flowers of Love of Memory"; "Guy, the Leper"; "Tears of the Diadem"; "Tale of the White and Red Roses"; "Woodreve Manor"; "Conscience, or the Trials of May Brooke"; "Oriental Pearl"; Cocaina, the Rose of the Algonquins"; "The Flemings"; "Nora Brady's Vow"; "Mona, the Vestal"; "The Old Gray Rosary"; "Tangled Paths"; "The Old House at Glenarra"; "Adrift"; "Ada's Trust"; "Beth's Promise"; "The Heiress of Carrigmona"; "Warp and Woof"; "The Palms".
MARY T. WAGGAMAN
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Anne Line

From volume 9 of the work.
English martyr, d. 27 Feb., 1601. She was the daughter of William Heigham of Dunmow, Essex, a gentleman of means and an ardent Calvinist, and when she and her brother announced their intention of becoming Catholics both were disowned and disinherited. Anne married Roger Line, a convert like herself, and shortly after their marriage he was apprehended for attending Mass. After a brief confinement he was released and permitted to go into exile in Flanders, where he died in 1594. When Father John Gerard established a house of refuge for priests in London, Mrs. Line was placed in charge. After Father Gerard's escape from the Tower in 1597, as the authorities were beginning to suspect her assistance, she removed to another house, which she made a rallying point for neighbouring Catholics. On Candlemas Day, 1601, Father Francis Page, S.J. was about to celebrate Mass in her apartments, when priest-catchers broke into the rooms. Father Page quickly unvested, and mingled with the others, but the altar prepared for the ceremony was all the evidence needed for the arrest of Mrs. Line. She was tried at the Old Bailey 26 Feb., 1601, and indicted under the Act of 27 Eliz. for harbouring a priest, though this could not be proved. The next day she was led to the gallows, and bravely proclaiming her faith, achieved the martyrdom for which she had prayed. Her fate was shared by two priests, [Bl.] Mark Barkworth, O.S.B., and Roger Filcock, S.J., who were executed at the same time.
Roger Filcock had long been Mrs. Line's friend and frequently her confessor. Entering the English College at Reims in 1588, he was sent with the others in 1590 to colonize the seminary of St. Albans at Valladolid, and, after completing his course there, was ordained and sent on the English mission. Father Garnett kept him on probation for two years to try his mettle before admitting him to the Society of Jesus, and finding him zealous and brave, finally allowed him to enter. He was just about to cross to the Continent for his novitiate when he was arrested on suspicion of being a priest and executed after a travesty of a trial.
[Note: In 1970, Anne Line was canonized by Pope Paul VI among the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feast day is kept on 25 October.]
MORRIS, Life of Fr. John Gerard; CHALLONER, Memoirs, I, 396; FOLEY, Records S.J. I, 405; VII, 254; Douay Diaries, p. 219, 280; Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. Rutland Coll. Belvoir Castle, I, 370; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.
Stanley J. Quinn.
# Canter v. American Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
28 U.S. 307
Canter v. American Insurance Company

## 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
# Canterbury Tales

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Canterbury Tales."
* 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.
* Canterbury Tales, compilation of stories by Harriet Lee
* The Canterbury Tales, versions of works by Geoffrey Chaucer