OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Swann v. Adams (378 U.S. 553)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 553
Swann v. Adams
The judgment below is reversed. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds.
Mr. Justice CLARK would reverse on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 587, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1395.
Mr. Justice STEWART would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U.S. 713, 744, 84 S.Ct. 1459, 1477.
Mr. Justice HARLAND dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 589, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1395.

## 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
# Swann v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
26 U.S. 683
Swann v. Brown
ERROR for the Circuit Court of Alexandria.
This case was argued by Mr. Swann, for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Jones, for the defendant.
The material facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court.
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
# Swann's Way/To E. J. C.

C. K. Scott-Moncrieff dedicated his translation of the first volume of Proust's mammoth work, Remembrance of Things Past (now usually translated as In Search of Lost Time), to a certain E. J. C. in the form of a poem, To E. J. C., which was then impertinently published with Proust's work - though he did acknowledge that he was the author. Otherwise, the book is translated exactly as Proust had written it.
To E.J.C.
Here, Summer lingering, loiter I When I, with Summer, should be gone... Where only London lights the sky I go, and with me journeys 'Swann'
Whose pages' dull laborious woof Covers a warp of working-time, Of firelit nights beneath your roof And sunlit days beneath the limes,
While both at once or each in turn, Sharp tongued but smooth, like buttered knifes, We pared, with studied unconcern, The problems of our private lives;
Those tiny problems, dense yet clear, Like ivory balls by Chinese craft Pierced (where each hole absorbed a tear) And rounded (where the assembly laughed).
Did all our laughter muffle pain, Our candour simulate pretence? Fear not. I shall not come again To tease you with indifference.
Yet I may gaze for Oakham spire Where London suns set, watery pale, And dream, while tides of crimson fire Sweep, smoking, over Catmos vale.
Michaelmas 1921 C. K. S. M.
# Swann v. Adams (383 U.S. 210)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 210
Swann v. Adams
D. P. S. Paul, P. D. Thomson, Neal Rutledge, Richard F. Wolfson, Thomas C. Britton and Stuart Simon, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., of Florida, and Edward D. Cowart and Sam Spector, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees.
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
# Swann v. Adams

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Swann v. Adams."
* 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.
* Swann v. Adams (378 U.S. 553)
* Swann v. Adams (383 U.S. 210)
* Swann v. Adams (385 U.S. 440)
# Swann v. Adams (383 U.S. 210)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 210
Swann v. Adams
We previously remanded this case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, and the other cases relating to legislative reapportionment decided with Reynolds. 378 U.S. 553, 84 S.Ct. 1904, 12 L.Ed.2d 1033. The District Court deferred action until the conclusion of the legislative session which convened on April 6, 1965, stating that it would reconsider its decision should the Florida Legislature fail to effect a valid reapportionment by July 1, 1965.
A reapportionment law was passed by the legislature on June 29, 1965. On July 6, the appellants filed a joint petition asking the District Court to declare the newly enacted plan unconstitutional and proposing an alternative plan. The District Court did not take action until October 5 when it ordered oral argument for November 2, 1965. On December 23 the District Court concluded that the newly passed reapportionment plan failed to 'meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution as construed and applied in Reynolds v. Sims * * *.'
Although the District Court concluded that the plan did not comport with constitutional requirements, it approved the plan (making only minor changes) on an interim basis. Its approval was limited to the period ending 60 days after the adjournment of the 1967 session of the Florida Legislature.
We have no occasion to review the District Court's determination that the legislative reapportionment plan fails to meet constitutional standards. Indeed, Florida does not contend that the District Court erred in this regard, having conceded below that the plan was constitutionally deficient. We hold, however, that in approving the plan on an interim basis, the District Court erred. This litigation was commenced in 1962. The effect of the District Court's decision is to delay effectuation of a valid apportionment in Florida until at least 1969. While recognizing the desirability of permitting the Florida Legislature itself to determine the course of reapportionment, we find no warrant for perpetuating what all concede to be an unconstitutional apportionment for another three years.
We reverse and remand to the District Court so that a valid reapportionment plan will be made effective for the 1966 elections.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART would affirm the judgment.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# Swann v. Adams (378 U.S. 553)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 553
Swann v. Adams
See 85 S.Ct. 15.
Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. of Florida, C. Graham Carothers, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward S. Jaffry and Joseph C. Jacobs, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees.
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
# Swann v. Adams (385 U.S. 440)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 440
Swann v. Adams
Argued: Dec. 6, 1966. --- Decided: Jan 9, 1967
See 385 U.S. 997, 87 S.Ct. 699.
D. P. S. Paul, Miami, Fla., for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Miami, Fla., 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
# Stories Revived

* Stories Revived (3 volumes, London: Macmillan & Co., 1885).
    — First edition.
* Stories Revived (2 volumes, London: Macmillan & Co., 1885).
    — Reprint of first edition in two volumes.
# Storaasli v. Minnesota

United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 57
Storaasli v. Minnesota
Argued: Feb. 25, 1931. --- Decided: March 23, 1931
Messrs. Charles Bunn and Pierce Butler, Jr., both of St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
Messrs. Henry N. Benson and James E. Markham, both of St. Paul, Minn., for the State of Minnesota.
[Argument of Counsel from page 58 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
# Stored-Grain Insect Reference

The unorthodox formatting found in the table of contents is present in the original document. The unorthodox grammar and spelling found here is also found in the original document.
Abstract
Five primary pests cause most of the insect damage to grain in storage and shipment. These are the granary weevil, the rice weevil, the maize weevil, the lessor grain borer or Australian wheat weevil, and the Angoumois grain moth. Other insect species or groups of species described in this handbook can cause great damage to grain if storage conditions are unusually favorable for their increase. Yet, if grain in the unbroken kernel remains unaffected by the five primary pests, it is not likely that any other insect will damage it appreciably in commercial storage or shipment, except possibly the khapra beetle. The secondary pests are mostly surface feeders in both the adult and larval stages. Some of them may eat into kernels of grain and lie hidden there, but most of them feed on grain dust or broken surfaces of kernels exposed by either mechanical injury to the grain in handling or by feeding of the five primary grain pests with which they are usually associated. Therefore the secondary pests can be largely removed by grain-cleaning operations.
Except for the lessor grain borer, the larvae or grubs of the primary insect pests are not ordinarily capable of a free existence outside the kernel. they live entirely within the kernel, where they feed unseen and usually unsuspected. They cannot be removed by ordinary cleaning machinery and must be controlled by other means.
Prepared by the Federal Grain Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture
This reference slightly revises Agricultural Handbook 500, “Stored-Grain Insects” which superseded Farmers’ Bulletin 1260, “Stored Grain Pests.”
Released March 2015
Contents
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Department of Agriculture, part of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Stored-Grain Insect Reference/Grain Weevils

GRAIN WEEVILS
Of the five true weevils that attack grain in the United States, only three are of primary importance—the granary weevil, the rice weevil, and the maize weevil. Except locally, the broadnosed grain weevil and the coffee bean weevil are of minor importance. All but the coffee bean weevil have elongated beaks or snouts, as shown in figures 1, 3, and 4.
* Granary Weevil
* Rice Weevil
* Maize Weevil
* Broadnosed Grain Weevil
* Coffee Bean Weevil
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Department of Agriculture, part of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Stored-Grain Insect Reference/Grain Weevils/Granary Weevil

Granary Weevil
The granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (Linnaeus), is a small, moderately polished, blackish or chestnut-brown beetle (fig. 1A). The head emends into a long slender snout with a pair of stow mandibles or jaw at the end. This insect is not more than three-sixteenths of an inch long arid often is smaller, There are no wings under the wing covers, and the thorax is well marked with longitudinal punctures, two characteristics that distinguish this insect from the closely related rice weevil with which it is often found.
The granary weevil. one of the oldest known insect pests. has been earned using ^ bike commerce to all parts of the world. It prefers a temperate climate and is more frequently found in the Northern States than in the South.
Both the adults and larvae feed voraciously on a great variety of grains. The adult weevils live, on an average 7 to 13 months. and each female lays 50 to 250 eggs during this period. Before laying, the female uses her mandibles to bore a small hole in a grain kernel. She then deposits an egg through the hole and covers it with a gelatinous fluid that seals the hole. The small, while. fleshy, legless grub or larva hatches from the egg and burrows about inside the kernel. When fully grown. the larva transforms into a pupa and then into an adult.
In warm weather, the granary weevil develops from the egg to the adult stage in about 4 weeks. Cold weather greatly prolongs The developmental period.
Figure 1. Grain weevils: Left, Granary weevil adult; center, Rice weevil adult, right, Maize weevil adult.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Department of Agriculture, part of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Rader
* 421 F.3d 1307
* STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (doing business as Storagetek), Plaintiff-Appellee
* v.
* CUSTOM HARDWARE ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and DAVID YORK, Defendant-Appellant.
* No. 04-1462
* United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
* Decided August 24, 2005
Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Judge Rya W. Zobel
Rehearing denied, 431 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)]
Before RADER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge RADER.

## Counsel

Charles W. Steese, Steese & Evans, P.C., of Denver, Colorado, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Sandra L. Potter. Of counsel on the brief were Michael D. Broaddus, Perkins Coie LLP, of Seattle, Washington, and Bobbee J. Musgrave, Musgrave & Theis, LLP, of Denver, Colorado. Of counsel were Jerry A. Riedinger, Perkins Coie LLP, of Seattle, Washington, and Mark T. Wasden, of Washington, DC; and Teresa L. Ashmore, Musgrave & Theis LLP, of Denver, Colorado.
Dean L. Franklin, Thompson Coburn LLP, of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for defendants-appellants Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. and David York. Of counsel on the brief were Edwin G. Harvey and Nicholas B. Clifford, Jr., Simon Passanante, PC, of St. Louis, Missouri, and Anthony G. Simon.
Joseph D. Steinfield, Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, for defendant-appellant David York.
# Stored-Grain Insect Reference/Introduction

STORED-GRAIN INSECTS
INTRODUCTION
Since the establishment of Federal standards for grain under the pro-visions of the Grain Standards Act, Federal grain supervisors and federally licensed grain inspectors have been required to identify the various species of “live weevils and other insects injurious to stored grain” which may be present in the grain. For accurate identification, uniform names should be used by all interested persons, including shipper, purchaser, and elevator operator.
Of the five primary insect pests, the granary weevil, the rice weevil, the maize weevil, and the lesser grain borer may well be called grain weevils. The fifth primary pest, the Angoumois grain moth, so destructive to wheat and corn, may be called a grain moth. Other insects likely to be found in grain may be called simply beetles, moths, and meal-worms. Their presence usually does not indicate a condition likely to affect the grain trade, if the grain, after it has reached the elevator, is screened and fanned to remove these insects.
This handbook briefly describes the biology, life histories, and habits of stored-grain insects and gives effective methods for the prevention and control of grain infestations.
Grain weevils, grain borers, grain moths, flour moths, grain and flour beetles, mealworms, dermestid beetles, spider beetles, miscellaneous beetles, booklice or psocids, silverfish, cockroaches, flour or grain mites, and parasites of grain pests are discussed.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Department of Agriculture, part of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Sperry Oil Gas Company v. Chisholm

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
264 U.S. 488
Sperry Oil Gas Company v. Chisholm
Argued: Jan. 16, 1924. --- Decided: April 7, 1924
Messrs. Preston C. West and Alvin Richards, both of Tulsa, Okl., for appellants.
Mr. H. L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 489 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. H. Langley, of Pryor, Okl., for appellees.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Spevack v. Klein

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 511
Spevack v. Klein
Argued: Nov. 7, 1966. --- Decided: Jan 16, 1967
Lawrence J. Latto, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Solomon A. Klein, for respondent, pro se.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN concur.

## 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
# Sperry Hutchinson Company v. Rhodes

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 502
Sperry Hutchinson Company v. Rhodes
[504]
The court declined to hear Mr. Thomas E. O'Brien for defendant in error. djQ Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court: This is an action brought by the defendant in error for

## 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
# Sperry v. Florida

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 379
Sperry v. Florida
Argued: March 25, 1963. --- Decided: May 27, 1963
[Syllabus from pages 379-380 intentionally omitted]
Carlisle M. Moore, Mellin, Hanscom & Hursh, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
F. Trowbridge vom Baur, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Amicus Curiae from pages 380-381 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Sperry Gyroscope Company v. Arma Engineering Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 232
Sperry Gyroscope Company v. Arma Engineering Company
Argued: April 15, 1926. --- Decided: May 24, 1926

## 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
# Tales of My Landlord (1st Series)/Volume 4

TALES OF MY LANDLORD,
COLLECTED AND ARRANGED
BY
JEDEDIAH CLEISHBOTHAM,
SCHOOLMASTER AND PARISH-CLERK OF GANDERCLEUGH.
Hear, Land o' Cakes and brither Scots, Frae Maidenkirk to Jonny Groats', If there's a hole in a' your coats, If there's a hole in aI rede ye tent it, A chiel's amang you takin' notes, A chiel's amang youAn' faith he'll prent it. A chiel's amang youAn' faith he'll prenBurns.
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
VOL. IV.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, PRINCE'S STREET: AND JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, LONDON.
1816.
Edinburgh, Printed by James Ballantyne and Co.
TALES OF MY LANDLORD.
​Ahora bien, diso el Cura, traedme, senor huésped, aquesos libros, que los quiero ver. Que me place, respondió el, y entrando, en su aposento, sacó dél una maletilla vieja cerrada con una cadenilla, y abriếndola, halló en ella tres libros grandes y unos papeles de muy buena letra escritos de mano.—Don Quixote, Part I. Capitulo 32.
It is mighty well, said the priest; pray, landlord, bring me those books, for I have a mind to see them. With all my heart, answered the host; and, going to his chamber, he brought out a little old cloke-bag, with a padlock and chain to it, and opening it, he took out three large volumes, and some manuscript papers written in a fine character.—Jarvis's Translation.
Old Mortality
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Conclusion
* Peroration
Layout 2
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
# Taylor v. Anderson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 74
Taylor v. Anderson
Argued: April 30, 1914. --- Decided: May 25, 1914
Mr. Napoleon B. Maxey for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. H. A. Ledbetter for defendants in error.
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