OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Wanted

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wanted."
* 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.
* Wanted, a poem by Rolf Boldrewood
* Wanted, a poem by Josiah Gilbert Holland
# Wandering shepherdess, or, the betrayed damsel (3)

THE
Wandering Shepherdeſs;
OR, THE
Betrayed Damſel.
To which is added,
GO LOOK, GO LOOK.
GLASGOW, Printed by J. & M. ROBERTSON, Saltmarket, 1799.
* The Wandering Shepherdess
* Go Look, Go Look
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
# United States v. Texas (339 U.S. 707)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Reed
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 707
United States v. Texas (339 U.S. 707)
Argued on Motion for Judgment March 28, 1950.
Decided June 5, 1950.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 16, 1950.
Sol. Gen. Philip B. Perlman, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Messrs. Price Daniel, J. Chrys Dougherty, Austin, Tex., for defendant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 708 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Texas (162 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 1
United States v. Texas
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Attorney General Harmon, Sol. Gen. Conrad, and Edgar Allan, for complainant.
George Clark, M. M. Crane, and A. H. Garland, for defendant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 3-20 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Texas (314 U.S. 480)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
314 U.S. 480
United States v. Texas (314 U.S. 480)
Argued: Nov. 19-21, 1941. --- Decided: Dec 22, 1941
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Pat M. Neff, Jr., of Austin, Tex., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BYRNES 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
# War and Peace (Tolstoy)/Book 15

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
# United States v. South Buffalo Railway Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Rutledge
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 771
United States v. South Buffalo Railway Company
Argued: Feb. 2, 1948. --- Decided: April 26, 1948
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.
Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Bruce Bromley, of New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v. Virginia. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 533
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
Argued: Jan. 11, 1944. --- Decided: June 5, 1944
See 65 S.Ct. 26.
On Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia.
Mr. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Messrs. John T. Cahill, of New York City, and Dan MacDougald, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
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
# United States v. Southern Pacific Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Southern Pacific Company."
* 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.
* United States v. Southern Pacific Company (251 U.S. 1)
* United States v. Southern Pacific Company (259 U.S. 214)
See also Southern Pacific Company v. United States.
# United States v. Southern Pacific Company (251 U.S. 1)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 1
United States v. Southern Pacific Company
Argued: March 5 and 6, 1919. --- Decided: Nov 17, 1919
Messrs. J. Crawford Biggs, of Raleigh, N. C., and Assistant Attorney General Kearful, for the United States.
Messrs. Charles R. Lewers, and William F. Herrin, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 2-6 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# United States v. George Riggs & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 136
United States v. George Riggs & Company
Argued: October 23, 1906. --- Decided: November 12, 1906
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds and Solicitor General Hoyt for petitioner.
Messrs. W. Wickham Smith and John K. Maxwell for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 137 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# United States v. George S. Bush & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
310 U.S. 371
United States v. George S. Bush & Company
Argued: April 23, 24, 1940. --- Decided: May 20, 1940
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Warner W. Gardner, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 372 intentionally omitted]
Mr. George R. Tuttle, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 373-374 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Company

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 725
United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Company
Argued: March 29, 30, 1950 --- Decided: June 5, 1950
Mr. Ralph S. Boyd, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 726 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edward F. Treadwell, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.
Mr. Warner W. Cardner, Washington, D.C., for Gill and others as amici curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# United States v. Georgia Public Service Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 285
United States v. Georgia Public Service Commission
Argued: Oct. 18, 1962. --- Decided: Jan 14, 1963
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for appellant.
Paul Rodgers, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
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
# United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Company/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Douglas
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 725
United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Company
Argued: March 29, 30, 1950 --- Decided: June 5, 1950
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the judgment and opinion except that he agrees with Mr. Justice DOUGLAS that interest should not be allowed.

## 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
# Walker v. Allred

Cite as Walker v. Allred, 179 Ark. 1104 (1929).
Supreme Court of Arkansas
179 Ark. 1104
Walker v. Allred
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court
Opinion delivered Sept. 23, 1929.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* APPEAL AND ERROR—ISSUE TRIED BELOW.—Where an action by one elected as sheriff to oust one elected as county tax collector was tried solely on the question whether there was, at the time of the election, the separate office of tax collector, and the trial court had before it all the information necessary for the determination of that question and so expressly declared in its judgment, the Supreme Court will likewise disregard questions relating to the tax collector's taking the oath of office and filing of bond and approval thereof, and will limit its consideration, to the issue decided by the court below.
* TAXATION—REPEAL OF ACT CREATING TAX COLLECTOR.—Acts 1927, c. 77, held to repeal Acts 1897, c. 32, creating the office of tax collector in Carroll County.
* STATUTES—MEANING OF LANGUAGE USED.—Where the will of the Legislature is clearly expressed, the court should adhere to the literal expression of the enactment without regard to the consequences, and every construction derived from a consideration of the reason and spirit should be discarded, for it is dangerous to interpret a statute contrary to its express words where it is not obvious that the maker meant something different from what they said.
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court, Eastern District; J. S. Maples, Judge; reversed.
Festus O. Butt, for appellant.
W. J. Tate and Chas. D. James, for appellee.
[Opinion of the court by Justice TURNER BUTLER.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Walker v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
165 U.S. 654
Walker v. Brown
Henry S. Robbins, for appellants.
N. T. Guernsey, for appellees.
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
# Walker v. City of Birmingham

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Jr.
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 307
Walker v. City of Birmingham
Argued: March 13 and 14, 1967. --- Decided: June 12, 1967
Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioners.
Earl McBee and J. M. Breckenridge, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., for United States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# Walker v. Bank of Washington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 62
Walker v. Bank of Washington

## 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
# United States v. Mersky

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 431
United States v. Mersky
Argued: Nov. 10, 1959. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1960
Mr. Eugene L. Grimm, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Julius L. Schapira, New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# United States v. Mercantile Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
176 U.S. 317
United States v. Mercantile Company
Argued: January 31, 1900. --- Decided: February 26, 1900
'In the first place, the great object of the suit is to enjoin and stop litigation in the state courts, and to bring all the litigated questions before the circuit court. This is one of the things which the Federal courts are expressly prohibited from doing. By the act of March 2, 1793, it was declared that a writ of injunction shall not be granted to stay proceedings in a state court. This prohibition is repeated in § 720 of the Revised Statutes, and extends to all cases except where otherwise provided by the bankrupt law.'
Without stopping to consider any other questions presented by counsel, this is sufficient to sustain the ruling of the Circuit Court, and the decree is affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 27
United States v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association
Solicitor General Marshall and Assistant Attorney General Turner, for the United States.
James M. Douglas and William G. Guerri, for appellee Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n.
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
# United States v. Merchants' & Manufacturers' Traffic Association of Sacramento

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 178
United States v. Merchants' & Manufacturers' Traffic Association of Sacramento
Argued: October 19, 1916. --- Decided: December 4, 1916
Assistant Attorney General Underwood for the United States.
Mr. Joseph W. Folk for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. John E. Alexander for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 179-181 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 179
United States v. Merriam
Argued: Oct. 11, 12, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1923
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 179-181 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Roy C. Gasser, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# United States v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 27
United States v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court in United States v. First City National Bank of Houston, 386 U.S. 361, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 151.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# United States v. Merrill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 614
United States v. Merrill
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Mr. Talbot, for the United States; Mr. Chipman, contra.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and 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
# Weird Tales/Volume 4/Issue 2/The Unnatural Son

from the May/June/July issue
The Unnatural Son
WE hope for the honor of human nature, that such events as the following do not often occur.
Among the indictments for theft, was one in which a person was a complainant against his own father, who, to appearance, was upward of seventy years of age. The party resided at Salisbury. The son testified that his father, during the absence of the former, broke open his house, and took, carried away, and concealed, sundry articles; that he procured a warrant, and went with an officer and found a part of the goods concealed in defendant's garret, etc. The officer, who is sheriff of the county, testified in substance the same as the complainant, in respect to the concealment of the goods; but on a cross-examination, said, that the door of the house was open, and no impediment was made to the search. On the part of the defendant, another son testified that the goods taken belonged to the father, and had been lent a number of years previous; that the father had divided his real property equally between himself and the complainant, taking a life-lease; that he had lent the articles in question to enable the son to prosecute his business; that differences had taken place, and the old man had requested these articles to be restored, but they were refused; that his father had gone to the house and taken them in open day, its being the only way in which they could be secured. When this witness was examined, the court enquired of the counsel for government, if he expected to impeach his testimony? It was answered, that it was not expected to impeach his character but do away his evidence; by proving that the son had purchased and paid for the articles. Its not appearing that any more than, a trespass would be proved, even if the old man did own the property, a nolle prosequi was entered, and the action was dismissed.
The indictment charged the old man with stealing to the amount of something like one hundred dollars. Had he been convicted, he must have been sentenced to hard labor in the state prison for a number of years. How unnatural, that a son, who, it appeared, had property gratuitously bestowed on him by his father, should seek for an occasion, in the presence of the public to swear to facts, a conviction for which must have consigned that father already on the brink of the grave to servitude and a dungeon!
# Weird Tales/Volume 4/Issue 3

Content exists for this periodical, though at this stage it is not specifically organised beyond a basic hierarchy.
The pages listed below are an automatically generated listing.
Special:PrefixIndex/Weird Tales/Volume 4/Issue 3/
# Washington Virginia Maryland Coach Company v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 142
Washington Virginia Maryland Coach Company v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: Feb. 10, 1937. --- Decided: April 12, 1937
Messrs. William J. Hughes, Jr., Robert E. Lynch, and Wm. E. Leahy, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles Fahy, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 143 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice ROBERTS 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
# Visions of the Daughters of Albion

Visions of the Daughters of Albion is a 1793 poem by William Blake, produced as a book with his own illustrations. It is a short and early example of his prophetic books, and a sequel of sorts to The Book of Thel.
The central narrative is of the female character Oothoon, called the "soft soul of America", and of her sexual experience. S. Foster Damon (A Blake Dictionary) suggested that Blake had been influenced by Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women, published in 1792.
    — Excerpted from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
The Eye sees more than the heart knows.
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