OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Burke v. McKay

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
43 U.S. 66
Burke v. McKay
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The suit was brought in the court below by the endorsee against the endorser of the following promissory note: $2,800.
Clinton, Miss., January 20th, 1837.
On the 1st day of January, eighteen hundred and forty, we, or either of us, promise to pay Robert Mathews, or order, twenty-eight hundred dollars, for value received.
R. E. STRATTON,
SAML. W. DICKSON,
B. GARLAND.
The note was endorsed thus
I assign the within note to Robert McKay, and hold myself responsible for the same, waiving notice of demand and protest if not paid at maturity.
ROBERT MATHEWS.
Clinton, 28th April, 1838.
The note was then endorsed by McKay in blank, and passed with two intermediate endorsements, into the hands of Burke, a citizen of Louisiana, the plaintiff below, and also plaintiff in error.
On the trial, the plaintiff read the note and the endorsements thereon; he also read, by agreement of parties, a statement in writing of S. Humphreys, who was absent and sick, for the purpose of proving a demand and notice of non-payment to the endorser, to wit:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
State of Mississippi, Hinds county.
By this public instrument of protest, be it known that, on this fourth day of January, 1840, at the request of James G. Paul, teller, the holder of the original note, of which a true copy is here endorsed, I, S. W. Humphreys, J. P., residing in the town of Clinton, Hinds county, Mississippi, qualified according to law, went to the house of Richard E. Stratton and presented that said note, and demanded payment, which was refused; I also went to the house of Samuel W. Dickson, and demanded payment, which was refused; I also went to the office of Burr Garland, in the town of Clinton, and there was no person of whom to make a demand.
Whereupon, I, the said S. W. Humphreys, J. P., and ex officio notary public, at the request aforesaid, do hereby solemnly and publicly protest the said note, as well against the drawer thereof as against the acceptors, endorsers, and all who are or may be concerned, for all exchanges or re-exchanges, costs, charges, damages, and interests, suffered, or to suffer, for non-payment of said note thus solemnly done and protested.
Given under my hand and seal, at my office at Clinton, the day and year above written.
S. W. HUMPHREYS, J. P. [SEAL.]

## 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
# Burke v. Ford

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 320
Burke v. Ford
Argued: Dec. 11, 1967. ---
Robert S. Rizley, for petitioners.
Irvine E. Ungerman, for respondents.
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
# Burke v. Gaines

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 388
Burke v. Gaines
THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Lawrence for the defendants in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Burke v. Gaines/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 388
Burke v. Gaines
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. A brief summary of the case will be sufficient to show that this court have no jurisdiction.
The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, brought their action of ejectment in the State court to recover certain premises described in the declaration.
By a statute of Arkansas, a party may maintain an ejectment upon an equitable title. And the defendants in error, in order to show such a title in themselves, offered in evidence certain documents tending to prove that a certain Ludovicus Belding had, by settlement in 1829, acquired a pre-emption right to the land in question, and that they are his heirs at law, and have paid to the proper officer the price fixed by the Government.
The plaintiff in error offered no evidence of title in himself, although he was in possession of the land. And at the trial, the defendants in error asked the court to instruct the jury that the papers and documents read in evidence by them were sufficient to maintain the action, if the defendant in error was in possession of any part of the land at the commencement of the suit, and also that they were entitled to recover, by way of damages, reasonable rents and profits.
The plaintiff in error, on his part, asked the court to instruct to jury that the certificates and documents offered by the defendants in error were void, and conferred no title to the premises.
This is the substance of the instructions asked for by the respective parties, although drawn out at greater length, and shows the questions presented for the decision of the court. The court gave the instructions asked for by the defendants in error, and refused those requested by the plaintiff.
Under these instructions, the jury found a verdict in favor of the defendants in error, and a judgment was entered accordingly, which was afterwards affirmed in the Supreme Court of the State; and upon that judgment, this writ of error was brought.
It appears, therefore, that no right was claimed by the plaintiff in error under any act of Congress, or under any authority derived from the United States. He merely objected to the validity of the title claimed by the defendants in error. As the case appears on the record, he was a mere trespasser, holding possession in opposition to a title claimed under the United States. The decision of the State court in favor of the title thus claimed by the defendants in error can certainly give the plaintiff no right to bring this writ under the twenty-fifth section of the act of 1789. He claimed no right under the United States, and consequently can have no foundation for his writ of error.
The case cannot be distinguished from that of Fulton and others v. McAffea, (16 Pet., 149,) and the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

## 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
# Brown v. Shannon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 55
Brown v. Shannon
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Maryland.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Schley for the appellant, and submitted on a printed argument by Mr. Latrobe and Mr. Gwinn for the defendants.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Brown v. Selfridge

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 189
Brown v. Selfridge
Argued: March 14, 1912. --- Decided: April 1, 1912
Mr. Wilton J. Lambert for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Henry E. Davis, William A.
Gordon, and J. Holdsworth Gordon for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Brown v. Slee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 828
Brown v. Slee
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. George G. Wright and Mr. Chester C. Cole, with whom was Mr. Wll iam M. Randolph, for the appellant, and by Mr. Charles C. Nourse for the appellee.
MR. CHLEF JUSTICE WAITE 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)/Diocese of Melo

From volume 10 of the work.
Located in Uruguay. It was decided in 1897 to erect two sees suffragan to Montevideo, one of which was to be Melo, but, owing to political causes, no appointments have been made as yet. However, negotiations for a renewal of diplomatic relations between the Republic and the Holy See are now in progress, and as the recognition of the new dioceses by the State is a condition of their resumption, this probably will be shortly accorded. The Diocese of Melo is to embrace the north-eastern part of Uruguay and so will include, in part or in whole, the Departments of Cerro Largo, Riviera, Tacuarembó, and Treinta y Tres. This region has an area of about 19,600 square miles; the population, practically all Catholic, barely numbers 145,000 (1906). The district is very fertile, but there is little agriculture, most of the inhabitants, a large and the most important element of whom are Brazilians, being engaged in cattle breeding. The town of Melo, founded in 1796, is the capital of Cerro Largo and contains about 7000 persons. It is situated near the Tacumari River about 315 miles north of Montevideo. It has a fine church and also a pretty chapel of our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Artigas (2500 inhabitants) lies 60 miles north of Melo, on the Brazilian frontier. San Fructuoso, the capital of Tacuarembó, has about 3000 inhabitants. The other centres of population are little more than hamlets.
Handbook of Uruguay. Bur. of the Amer. Rep. (Washington, 1892); BRYSSEL. La république orientale de l'Uruguay (1889); Publications of the Dirección de estadística general (Montevideo); MULHALL, Handbook of the River Plate Republics (London, 1895).
A. A. MacErlean.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Diocese of Massa Marittima

From volume 10 of the work.
(MASSANA)
Massa Marittima, in the Province of Grosseto, in Tuscany, first mentioned in the eighth century. It grew at the expense of Populonia, an ancient city of the Etruscans, the principal port of that people, and important on account of its iron, tin, and copper works. Populonia was besieged by Sulla, and in Strabo's time was already decadent; later it suffered at the hands of Totila, of the Lombards, and in 817 of a Byzantine fleet. After this, the bishops of Populonia abandoned the town, and in the eleventh century, established their residence at Massa. In 1226 Massa became a commune under the protection of Pisa. In 1307 it made an alliance with Siena, which was the cause of many wars between the two republics that brought about the decadence of Massa. The town has a fine cathedral. The first known Bishop of Populonia was Atellus (about 495); another was Saint Cerbonius (546), protector of the city, to whom Saint Gregory refers in his Dialogues. Among the bishops of Massa were the friar Antonio (1430), a former general of the Franciscans, and legate of Boniface IX; Leonardo Dati (1467), author of poetic satires; Alessandro Petrucci (1601), who embellished the cathedral and the episcopal palace; the Camaldolese Eusebio da Ciani (1719), who governed the diocese for fifty-one years. This see was at first suffragan of Pisa, but since 1458 of Siena. It has 29 parishes, 68,200 inhabitants, one religious house of men and four of women.
CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVII (Venice, 1862).
U. BENIGNI.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Diocese of Mazzara del Vallo

From volume 10 of the work.
DIOCESE OF MAZZARA DEL VALLO (MAZARIENSIS).
The city is situated in the province of Trepani, Sicily, on the Mediterranean, at the mouth of the Mazzara River. It carries on a large lemon trade, has several mineral springs in the vicinity, and occupies the site of the emporium of ancient Silinus. The port very early attracted a Megarian colony (630 B.C.); in 409 B.C. it was taken by the Carthaginians; and in 249 was completely destroyed and its inhabitants deported to Lilybaeum (Marsala). Gradually there arose around the port a new city, captured by Sarcarens in 827. It was later made the capital of one of the three great valli into which the Saracens divided Sicily. In the struggle of the Saracens against the Normans for the possession of the island, Mazzara was hotly contested, especially in 1075 when the Saracens were completely routed by Count Roger. The episcopal See of Lilybaeum was then transferred to Mazzara. Of the bishops of Lilybaeum the best known is Paschasinus, legate of Leo I at the Council of Chalcedon (451). The first Bishop of Mazzara was Stefano de Ferro, a relative of Count Roger (1093). The cathedral was then founded, and later embellished by Bishop Tristiano (1157). Other noteworthy bishops were Cardinal Bessarion (1449); Giovanni de Monteaperto( 1470), who restored the cathedral and founded a library; Bernardo Gasco (1579), of Toledo, founder of the seminary; Cardinal Gian Domenico Spinola (1637); the Franciscan Francesco M. Graffeo (1685). In 1844 the newly erected diocese of Marsala was separated from Mazzara. Mazzara is a suffragan of Palermo, has 23 parishes, 430 priests, 5 religious houses of men and 29 of women, 3 schools for boys and 25 for girls, and a population of 276,000.
CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857).
U. BENIGNI
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Diocese of Melfi and Rapolla

From volume 10 of the work.
DIOCESE OF MELFI AND RAPOLLA (MELPHIENSIS ET RAPOLLENSIS)
Diocese in the province of Potenza, in Basilicata, southern Italy. Melfi is situated on a pleasant hill, on the slopes of Mt. Volture. The origin of the city is not well known; but the town became famous in 1043, when it was chosen capital of the new military state created in southern Italy by the twelve Norman counts, founders of the Kingdom of Naples. Nicholas II made it a diocese immediately dependent on the Holy See, its first bishop was Baldwin. Its beautiful cathedral, a work of Bishop Roger, son of Robert Guiscard (1155), was destroyed by the earthquake of 1851. Among its other bishops, mention should be made of Fra Alessandro de San Elpidio, a former general of the Augustinians (1328), and a learned theologian. In 1528, Clement VII, in view of the scarcity of its revenues, united the Diocese of Rapolla to that of Melfi, "aeque principaliter". Rapolla is a city founded by the Lombards, on the banks of the Olivento River. The Normans took it from the Greeks in 1042, and fortified it with works still to be seen. The town, which has a beautiful cathedral, was an episcopal see, suffragan of Siponto, in the time of Gregory VII. Other bishops were Cardinal Giovanni Vincenzo Acquaviva (1537), who gave a noble organ to the cathedral, and Lazzro Caraffini (1622), founder of the seminary. Several councils were held at Melfi; one in 1048; another 1059, under Nicholas II, important on account of the prohibition of the marriage of priests, the deposition of the Bishop of Trani, promoter of the schism of Cerularius, and the investiture of Robert Guiscard of the Ducy of Apulia and Calabria; the council of 1067, the one of 1089, against simony and the concubinage of priests, and for the freedom of the Church; lastly, the council of 1100. The united sees have 14 parishes, with 40,000 inhabitants, 66 priests, 5 religious houses of women, and 1 school for boys and 1 for girls.
CAPPELLETTI: Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857).
U. BENIGNI
# Brennan v. Maxey's Yamaha/Dissent Ross

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Ross
ROSS, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
This is an extremely close case, but because the trial court had the best opportunity to view the witnesses and judge their credibility, I would defer to his determination that discrimination played no part in Holman's discharge. I concur in Parts II and III of Judge Gibson's opinion.
# Brenner v. Manson

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 519
Edward J. BRENNER, Commissioner of Patents, Petitioner, v. Andrew John MANSON.
Argued: Nov. 17, 1965. --- Decided: March 21, 1966
Paul Bender, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Dean Laurence, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# Brennan v. Maxey's Yamaha

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Ross
* 513 F.2d 179
* Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant-Cross-Appellee
* v.
* Maxey's Yamaha, Inc., et al., Appellee-Cross-Appellant
* No. 74-1354 and 74-1478
* United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
* January 8, 1975, Submitted
* March 26, 1975, Decided
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Sylvia S. Ellison, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for Secretary of Labor.
John J. Respeliers, Omaha, Neb., for Maxey's Yamaha.
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY, and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
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
# Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 1
Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Company
Argued: Jan. 20, 21, 1932. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1932
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 2-3 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Arnold R. Baar, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 3 intentionally omitted]
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
# Burnet v. Chicago Railway Equipment Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 295
Burnet v. Chicago Railway Equipment Company
Argued: Dec. 3, 1930. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1931
Mr. Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Henry W. Price, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
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
# Burnet v. Clark

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
287 U.S. 410
Burnet v. Clark
Argued: Nov. 14, 1932. --- Decided: Dec 12, 1932
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. William S. Hammers, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
287 U.S. 415
Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Company
Argued: Nov. 14, 1932. --- Decided: Dec 12, 1932
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. Schofield Andrews and Ellis Ames Ballard, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, 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
# Burnet v. Brooks

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 378
Burnet v. Brooks
Argued: Feb. 9, 1933. --- Decided: March 13, 1933
[Syllabus from pages 378-380 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D.Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 380-382 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Francis B. Hamlin, of New York City, for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 382-386 intentionally omitted]
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
# Broken Necks

* Preface
* Broken Necks
* The Philosopher’s Benefit
* Decay
* Mishkin's ldealist
* The Bomb Thrower
* A Nigger Who Was Hanged
* Dog Eat Dog
* The Imposter
* Fragments
* Melancholia Preceding Seduction
* Life
* My Last Park Bench
* Depths
* Rendezvous
* Gratitude
* The New Skyscraper
* Nocturne
* The Psychological Phantom
* Black Umbrellas
* The Wrong "Front"
* The Yellow Goat
* Lenin and Wilson Talk Their New Language on Doorstep of Valhalla
* The Movie Maniac
* Caricature
* The Policewoman’s Daughter
* Shanghaied
* Jazz
* The Man with One Wife
* Infatuation
* The Unlovely Sin
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1964, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 59 years or less. 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
# Buddenbrooks/Volume 1/Part 4

PART FOUR
# California v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
490 U.S. 920
California v. United States
No. 87-1165
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Case below: 830 F.2d 139 (CA9, 1987).
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
# California v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
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