OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Oklahoma Gin Company v. Oklahoma

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 339
Oklahoma Gin Company v. Oklahoma
Argued: Oct. 9, 1919. --- Decided: March 22, 1920
Mr. C. B. Ames, of Oklahoma City, Okl. for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. S. P. Freeling and Paul A. Walker, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
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
# Oklahoma House Bill 1329 (2009)

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

## New Law

    A. Each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any federal, state, county, municipal or judicial office, or for the nomination of a recognized political party, in any general, primary, or special election shall, no later than twenty-four (24) hours after filing the Declaration of Candidacy provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the election board at which the Declaration was filed.
    B. For purposes of this section, a candidate shall present to the election board a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States citizenship:
       1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;
       2. An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;
       3. An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad;
       4. An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States;
       5. An original Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-561); or
       6. For an elective office other than President and Vice President of the United States, an original Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550, N-570, or N-578) or a valid United States passport.
    C. Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
# One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes

* related portals: Brothers Grimm.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
* "Einäuglein, Zweiäuglein und Dreiäuglein" (German) Grimm, Kinder- und Hausmärchen
* "One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes" Hunt, M. Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 2. 1884.
# One Big Union of All the Workers, the Greatest Thing on Earth/Advertisements

​Page:One Big Union of All the Workers the Greatest Thing on Earth (ca 1919, Chicago).pdf/2 ​Page:One Big Union of All the Workers the Greatest Thing on Earth (ca 1919, Chicago).pdf/31 ​Page:One Big Union of All the Workers the Greatest Thing on Earth (ca 1919, Chicago).pdf/32
# One, Inc. v. Olesen

One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. ONE, Inc., a spinoff of the Mattachine Society, published the early pro-gay "ONE: The Homosexual Magazine" beginning in 1953. After a campaign of harassment from the United States Postal Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Postmaster of Los Angeles declared the October, 1954 issue obscene therefore unmailable under the Comstock laws. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 371
One, Inc. v. Olesen
Mr. Eric Julber, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard and Mr. Samuel D. Slade, for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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
# One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania

One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania 380 U.S. 693 (1965) was a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1965. The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 693
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania
Argued: March 31, 1965. --- Decided: April 29, 1965
Standord Shmukler, Philadelphia, Pa., (Louis Lipschitz, Jerold G. Klevit, and Lipschitz & Chalfin, Philadelphia, Pa., with him on the brief), for petitioner.
Thomas J. Shannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG 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
# One, Inc. v. Olesen/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 371
One, Inc. v. Olesen
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498.

## 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
# One, Two, Buckle My Shoe

"One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" is a popular English language nursery rhyme and counting-out rhyme of which there are early occurrences in the US and UK. It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 11284. Warning: template has been deprecated.
* "One, two, Buckle my shoe" in Dorsetshire Children's Games, &c by John Symonds Udal (The Folk-Lore Journal, 1889)
* "One, two, buckle my shoe" in A Book of Nursery Songs and Rhymes by Sabine Baring-Gould (1895)
* "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" in The Real Mother Goose by Blanche Fisher Wright (1916)
# One Big Union of All the Workers, the Greatest Thing on Earth

* related portals: Economic history and conditions, Industrial Workers of the World.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)
* IWW preamble
* One Big Union
* Analysis of the Arrangement of Industries
* Advertisements
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter II

Letter II.
A Letter of Sulpitius Severus to His Sister Claudia Concerning Virginity.

## Contents

* 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
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter II/Chapter I

Chapter I.
How great blessedness, among heavenly gifts, belongs to holy virginity, besides the testimonies of the Scriptures, we learn also from the practice of the Church, by which we are taught that a peculiar merit belongs to those who have devoted themselves to it by special consecration. For while the whole multitude of those that believe receive equal gifts of grace, and all rejoice in the same blessings of the sacraments, those who are virgins possess something above the rest, since, out of the holy and unstained company of the Church, they are chosen by the Holy Spirit, and are presented by the bishop at the altar of God, as if being more holy and pure sacrifices, on account of the merits of their voluntary dedication. This is truly a sacrifice worthy of God, inasmuch as it is the offering of so precious a being, and none will please him more than the sacrifice of his own image. For I think that the Apostle especially referred to a sacrifice of this kind, when he said, “Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” Virginity, therefore, possesses both that which others have, and that which others have not; while it obtains both common and special grace, and rejoices (so to speak) in its own peculiar privilege of consecration. For ecclesiastical authority permits us to style virgins also the brides of Christ; while, after the manner of brides, it veils those whom it consecrates to the Lord, openly exhibiting those as very especially about to possess spiritual marriage who have fled away from carnal fellowship. And those are worthily united, after a spiritual manner, to God, in accordance with the analogy of marriage, who, from love to him, have set at nought human alliances. In their case, that saying of the apostle finds its fullest possible fulfillment, “He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ “per summum sacerdotem.”
* ↑ Rom. xii. 1.
* ↑ 1 Cor. vi. 17.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter II/Chapter III

Chapter III.
But that the merit of virginity may shine forth more clearly, and that there may be a better understanding as to how worthy it is of God, let this be considered, that the Lord God, our Saviour, when, for the salvation of the human race, he condescended to assume mankind, chose no other than a virgin’s womb, that he might show how virtue of this kind especially pleased him; and that he might point out the blessedness of chastity to both sexes, he had a virgin mother, while he himself was ever to remain in a like condition. He thus furnished in his own person to men, and in the person of his mother to women, an example of virginity, by which it might be proved, with respect to both sexes, that the blessed state of purity possessed the
fullness of divinity, for whatever dwelt in the Son was also wholly in the mother. But why should I take pains to make known the excellent and surpassing merit of chastity, and to set forth the glorious good of virginity, when I am not ignorant that many have discoursed on this subject, and have proved its blessedness by most conclusive reasons, and since it can never be a matter of doubt to any reflecting mind, that a thing has all the more merit, the more difficult it is of accomplishment? For if any one judges chastity to be of no moment or only of small consequence, it is certain that he is either ignorant of the matter, or is not willing to incur the trouble it implies. Hence it comes to pass that those always derogate from the importance of chastity, who either do not possess it, or who are unwillingly compelled to maintain it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The text is here most uncertain; that adopted by Halm seems unintelligible.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter II/Chapter II

Chapter II.
For it is a great and a divine thing, almost beyond a corporeal nature, to lay aside luxury, and to extinguish, by strength of mind, the flame of concupiscence, kindled by the torch of youth; to put down by spiritual effort the force of natural delight; to live in opposition to the practice of the human race; to despise the comforts of wedlock; to disdain the sweet enjoyments derived from children; and to regard as nothing, in the hope of future blessedness, everything that is reckoned among the advantages of this present life. This is, as I have said, a great and admirable virtue, and is not undeservedly destined to a vast reward, in proportion to the greatness of its labor. The Scripture says, “I will give to the eunuchs, saith the Lord, a place in my house and within my walls, a place counted better than sons and daughters; I will give them an eternal name, and it shall not fail.” The Lord again speaks concerning such eunuchs in the Gospel, saying, “For there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” Great, indeed, is the struggle connected with chastity, but greater is the reward; the restraint is temporal, but the reward will be eternal. For the blessed Apostle John also speaks concerning these, saying that “they follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.” This, I think, is to be understood to the following effect, that there will be no place in the court of heaven closed against them, but that all the habitations of the divine mansions will be thrown open before them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ “sopire luxuriam,” lit. to put to sleep.
* ↑ “a filiis et filiabus”: a mistaken rendering of the Hebrew text.
* ↑ Isa. lvi. 5.
* ↑ Matt. xix. 12.
* ↑ Rev. xiv. 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter II/Chapter IX

Chapter IX.
There follows the clause “how she may please God,”—God, I say, not men,—“that she may be holy both in body and spirit.” He does not say that she may be holy only in a member or in the body, but that she may be holy in body and spirit. For a member is only one part of the body, but the body is a union of all the members. When, therefore, he says that she may be holy in the body, he testifies that she ought to be sanctified in all her members, because the sanctification of the other members will not avail, if corruption be found remaining in one. Also, she will not be holy in body (which consists of all the members), who is defiled by the pollution of even one of them. But in order that what I say may be made more obvious and clear, suppose the case of a woman who is purified by the sanctification of all her other members, and sins only with her tongue, inasmuch as she either speaks evil of people or bears false testimony, will all her other members secure the acquittal of one, or will all the rest be judged on account of the one? If, therefore, the sanctification of the other members will not avail, even when one only is at fault, how much more, if all are corrupted by the guilt of various sins, will the perfection of one be of no avail?

## Footnotes

* ↑ “Blasphemet.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter II/Chapter V

Chapter V.
Now, there are three kinds of virtue, by means of which the possession of the kingdom of heaven is secured. The first is chastity, the second, contempt of the world, and the third, righteousness, which, as when joined together, they very greatly benefit their possessors, so, when separated, they can hardly be of any advantage, since every one of them is required, not for its own sake only, but for the sake of another. First of all, then, chastity is demanded,
that contempt of the world may more easily follow, because the world can be more easily despised by those who are not held fast in the bonds of matrimony. Contempt of the world, again, is required, in order that righteousness may be maintained, which those can with difficulty fully preserve who are involved in desires after worldly advantages, and in the pursuit of mundane pleasures. Whosoever, therefore, possesses the first kind of virtue, chastity, but does not, at the same time, have the second, which is contempt of the world, possesses the first almost to no purpose, since he does not have the second, for the sake of which the first was required. And if any one possesses the first and second, but is destitute of the third which is righteousness, he labors in vain, since the former two are principally required for the sake of the third. For what profits it to possess chastity in order to contempt of the world, and yet not to have that on account of which you have the other? Or why should you despise the things of the world, if you do not observe righteousness, for the sake of which it is fitting that you should possess chastity, as well as contempt for the world? For as the first kind of virtue is on account of the second, and the second on account of the third, so the first and the second are on account of the third; and if it does not exist, neither the first nor the second will prove of any advantage.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Doubtful Letters/Letter I/Chapter VII

Chapter VII.
Then will the Evangelist repeat this to the wretched beings, “Go ye into outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” O ye miserable men, whom these words do not now impress! They shall then see their own punishment, and the glory of others. Let them use this present world, provided they do not enjoy that eternity which is prepared for the saints. Let them abound in riches: let them rest on gold; provided that there they be found needy and destitute. Let them be wealthy in this world, provided they be poor in eternity, for it is written regarding them, “The rich were in want, and suffered hunger.” But the Scripture has added what follows respecting the good,—“but those who seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.”
Therefore, my sister, although those people mock at us, and although they call us foolish and unhappy, let us all the more joyfully exult in such reproaches, by which glory is heaped up for us, and punishment for them. And do not let us laugh at their folly, but rather grieve over their unhappiness; because there is among them a large number of our own people, whom if we win over, our glory shall be increased. But however they may conduct themselves, let
them be to us as Gentiles and publicans; but let us keep ourselves safe and sound. If they rejoice now over us lamenting, it will be our turn afterwards to rejoice over their suffering. Farewell, dearest sister, and tenderly beloved in Christ.

## Footnotes

* ↑ St. Matt. xxii. 13.
* ↑ Ps. xxxiv. 10: the above rendering entirely departs from the Hebrew text.
# Ozan Lumber Company v. Union County National Bank of Liberty Indiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
207 U.S. 251
Ozan Lumber Company v. Union County National Bank of Liberty Indiana
Argued: November 5, 1907. --- Decided: December 2, 1907
This case comes here upon certiorari directed to the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit. The action was commenced in the United States circuit court for the western district of Arkansas, upon certain promissory notes, which the defendant, the Ozan Lumber Company, in its answer alleged had been given by it in payment for a patented article, such notes not being executed upon a printed form, showing they were given in consideration of a patented machine, as required by the statute of Arkansas. Kirby's Digest Laws of Arkansas, §§ 513 to 516, inclusive.
A demurrer to the defense was interposed on the ground that it did not state facts constituting a defense. The circuit court sustained the demurrer, because, as it held, the act was in violation of the 14th Amendment, as denying to the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws. 127 Fed. 206. The case was taken by writ of error to the circuit court of appeals, where the judgment was affirmed for the reason that the act was an illegal discrimination against patented articles. 76 C. C. A. 218, 145 Fed. 344. The application by defendant for a certiorari to review that judgment was granted.
Messrs. U. M. Rose and Thomas C. McRae for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 252 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Morris M. Cohn for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 253 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, 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
# Oysters (Chekhov)

English-language translations of Устрицы include:
* Oysters, translated by Robert Edward Crozier Long in The Kiss and Other Stories, 1908
* Oysters, translated by Constance Garnett in The Cook's Wedding and Other Stories, 1922
# Oyler v. Boles

Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of habitual criminal statutes. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 448
Oyler v. Boles
Argued: Dec. 4, 1961. --- Decided: Feb 19, 1962
David Ginsburg, Washington, D.C., for the petitioners.
George H. Mitchell, Charleston, W. Va., for the respondent.
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
# Ozark Pipe Line Corporation v. Monier

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 555
Ozark Pipe Line Corporation v. Monier
Argued: Nov. 26, 1924. --- Decided: Jan 12, 1925
Messrs. Truman Post Young and John H. Carroll, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 556-557 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Jesse W. Barrett and J. Henry Caruthers, both of Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 558-560 intentionally omitted]
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
# Only a Woman's Hair

* "Only a Woman's Hair" in Phantasmagoria and Other Poems (1869)
* "Only a Woman's Hair" in Three Sunsets and Other Poems (1898)
* "Only a Woman's Hair" in The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll (1920)
# Onward, Christian Soldiers

* related portals: Hymns.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
This hymn was originally published in Church Times on 15 October 1865, with the title "Hymn for Procession with Cross and Banners". This publication was set to a tune from the third movement of Franz Joseph Haydn's Symphony no. 15 in D Major, but the hymn is now usually sung to the tune "St. Gertrude" by Arthur Seymour Sullivan
* "Onward, Christian Soldiers" in Church Times (1865)
* "Onward, Christian Soldiers" in The One Hundred and One Best Songs (1915)
* "Onward, Christian Soldiers" in The Army and Navy Hymnal (1920)
# Ontario Land Company v. Wilfong

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
223 U.S. 543
Ontario Land Company v. Wilfong
Argued: January 24, 1912. --- Decided: February 26, 1912
Messrs. Arcadius L. Agatin and William W. Billson for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 544-547 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Benjamin S. Grosscup and Ira P. Englehart for appellees.
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
# Perpetual Peace

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
one or more chapters are available in a spoken word format.Audio files from LibriVox.org

## Table of contents

* First Section: Preliminary Articles of a Perpetual Peace Between States.
* Second Section: Definitive Articles of a Perpetual Peace Between States.
* Supplements
** Of the Guarantee of Perpetual Peace
** Secret Article relating to Perpetual Peace
* Appendix I: Discordance between Morals and Politics in reference to Perpetual Peace.
* Appendix II: Accordance of Politics with Morals according to the Transcendental Conception of Public Right
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.