OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Schwartz v. Texas/Concurrence Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 199
Schwartz v. Texas
Argued: Nov. 12, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1952
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring in the result.
If the only question involved in this case were the applicability to prosecutions in State courts, in situations like the present, of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605, 47 U.S.C.A. § 605, as construed in the two Nardone cases, 302 U.S. 379, 58 S.Ct. 275, 82 L.Ed. 314; 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307, I would join in the opinion of the Court. I agree with the views on this subject expressed by Mr. Justice Minton.
The matter is complicated, however, by a Texas statute, Art. 727a, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure (1948), which renders inadmissible in criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of any provision 'of the Constitution of the United States'. If this limitation means, according to Texas law, that the State court is to construe what is or is not a violation under the United States Constitution, it does not raise a federal question. But if the Texas legislation means that the Texas courts are bound by what this Court deems a violation of the United States Constitution, the problem is, or might be, different. See State Tax Commission of Utah v. Van Cott, 306 U.S. 511, 59 S.Ct. 605, 83 L.Ed. 950. While, on the latter assumption, the circumstances attending the evidence that was admitted here would, in my view, render it inadmissible in a federal prosecution, see my sissent in On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 758, 72 S.Ct. 967, 974, the decision of this Court was to the contrary. Therefore the Texas court was in duty bound to follow that decision and to reach the result it reached even if it felt constrained, as apparently it did, to be governed by the views of this Court as to what constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution. I cannot say that the Texas court should have followed my minority views, to which I adhere, on this constitutional question, and disregarded the Court's authority.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

## 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
# Schweer v. Brown/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 171
Schweer v. Brown
Argued: October 31, 1904. --- Decided: November 7, 1904
Messrs. Daniel W. Jones, Harry H. Myers, and U.S. Bratton for appellants.
Messrs. Robert E. Wiley and George B. Pugh for appellee.
This was a summary proceeding in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas, in bankruptcy, requiring the payment to the trustee in bankruptcy of the sum of $2,000 as part of the assets of the bankrupt's estate. In return to a rule, one of the respondents alleged that he had paid the money over to the other, and denied the jurisdiction of the court. The other, Mrs. Schweer, denied that she had or ever had had any money belonging or due to the estate, and denied jurisdiction. The matter was heard before a referee, who made findings of fact and conlusions of law, and ordered the return of the money. It was then carried to the district court and there heard de novo. The district court sustained the referee, and entered decree for the payment of the money to the trustee. Thereupon an appeal was taken directly to this court on the ground that the case fell within the first of the classes of cases enumerated in § 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 827, chap. 517, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 549]. But that class only includes cases where the question is as to the jurisdiction of courts of the United States as such, and the question has to be certified. That was not the question raised here, and none such was certified. And it is settled that the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether any adverse claim to the money was asserted at the time the petition was filed. Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1, 46 L. ed. 405, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269; Louisville Trust Co. v. Comingor, 184 U.S. 18, 46 L. ed. 413, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293.
If the court erred in retaining jurisdiction on the mertis, the remedy was by petition to the circuit court of appeals, under § 24b of the bankruptcy law [30 Stat. at L. 553, chap. 541, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3432]. IIolden v. Stratton, 191 U.S. 115, 48 L. ed. 116, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 45.
Appeal dismissed.

## 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
# Schwartz v. Texas/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 199
Schwartz v. Texas
Argued: Nov. 12, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 15, 1952
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
Since, in my view (as indicated in my dissent in On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 762, 72 S.Ct. 967, 976), this wiretapping was a search that violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence obtained by it should have been excluded. The question whether the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the states, see Wolf v. State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, probably need not be reached, because a Texas statute has excluded evidence obtained in violation of the Federal Constitution. Therefore I would reverse the judgment. It is true that the prior decisions of the Court point to affirmance. But those decisions reflect constructions of the Constitution which I think are erroneous. They impinge severely on the liberty of the individual and give the police the right to intrude into the privacy of any life. The practices they sanction have today acquired a momentum that is so ominous I cannot remain silent and bow to the precedents that sanction them.

## 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
# Schwarz v. National Security Agency

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Schwarz v. National Security Agency, 526 U.S. 122 (1999) see Barbara Schwarz (Wikipedia)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
526 U.S. 122
BARBARA SCHWARZ v NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al.
Nos. 98-7771 and 98-7782. -Decided: March 8, 1999
OPINION:
ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Schwarz seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Schwarz is allowed until March 29, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit her petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Schwarz in noncriminal matters unless she pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1
Schwarz has repeatedly abused this Court's certiorari process. On December 14, 1998, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Schwarz in forma pauperis status with respect to four petitions for certiorari. See Schwarz v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 525 U.S. 1053 (1998); Schwarz v. National Institute of Corrections, 525 U.S. 1053, 142 L. Ed. 2d 556, 119 S. Ct. 616 (1998); Schwarz v. United States Parole Comm'n, 525 U.S. 1053, 142 L. Ed. 2d 556, 119 S. Ct. 616 (1998); Schwarz v. National Archives and Records Administration, 525 U.S. 1053, 142 L. Ed. 2d 556, 119 S. Ct. 616 (1998). Before that time, Schwarz had filed 29 petitions for certiorari, all of which were both patently frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The instant petitions for certiorari thus constitute Schwarz's 34th and 35th frivolous filings with this Court.
We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, 113 S. Ct. 397 (1992) (per curiam). Schwarz's abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Schwarz from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on her. Similarly, because Schwarz has not abused this Court's extraordinary writs procedures, the order will not prevent her from filing nonfrivolous petitions for extraordinary writs. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, Dissenting.
For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 4, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, 113 S. Ct. 397 (1992) (STEVENS, J., dissenting), and cases cited, I respectfully dissent.
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
# Schweer v. Brown

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 171
Schweer v. Brown
Argued: October 31, 1904. --- Decided: November 7, 1904

## 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
# Ripley v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 144
Ripley v. United States
Argued: December 4, 1911. ---
William H. Robeson, Ben Carter, and F. Carter Pope for Ripley.
Attorney General Wickersham, Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson, and Mr. P. M. Ashford for the United States.
Mr. Chief 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
# Rippey v. Texas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
193 U.S. 504
Rippey v. Texas
Argued: March 11, 1904. --- Decided: March 21, 1904
Messrs. George Clark, D. C. Bollinger, Francis M. Etheridge, and Rhodes S. Baker for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 504-507 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. C. K. Bell and T. S. Reese for defendant in error.
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
# Ripley v. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
83 U.S. 336
Ripley v. Insurance Company
That the deceased was travelling is clear enough, but was travelling on foot travelling by public or private conveyance?
The contract must receive the construction which the language used fairly warrants. What was the understanding of the parties, or, rather, what understanding must naturally have been derived from the language used? It seems to us that walking would not naturally be presented to the mind as a means of public or private conveyance. Public conveyance naturally suggests a vessel or vehicle employed in the general conveyance of passengers. Private conveyance suggests a vehicle belonging to a private individual.
If this was the sense in which the language was understood by the parties, the deceased was not, when injured, travelling, within the terms of the policy. There is nothing to show that it was not.
JUDGMENT 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
# Riquet with the Tuft

English-language translations of Riquet à la houppe include:
* "Riquet with the Tuft" Charles Welsh The Tales of Mother Goose, 1901.
* "Riquet with the Tuft" Samber (transl.); Mansion (ed.); Clarke (ill.). The fairy tales of Charles Perrault. Harrap, 1922.
* "Ricky of the Tuft" Charles Perrault; A. E. Johnson (transl.); W. Heath Robinson (ill.) Old time stories, 1921.
# Rip Van Winkle (Irving)

This short story was first published in 1819 as part of Irving's collection The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon.
* "Rip Van Winkle", in The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon (1819).
* "Rip Van Winkle", in The Garden of Romance (1897).
* Rip Van Winkle, illustrated by Arthur Rackham (1919)
# Scott v. Lunt/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 349
Scott v. Lunt
Upon an inspection of the record, it appears that the plaintiff claims in his declaration the sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars as remaining due to him, and he has laid the ad damnum at one thousand dollars. Under such circumstances, a general verdict having been given against him, the matter in dispute is, in our opinion, the sum which he claims in the ad damnum. The court cannot judicially take notice, that by computation it may possibly be made out as matter of inference from the declaration, that the plaintiff's claim, in reality, must be less than one thousand dollars: much less can it take such notice in a case where the plaintiff might be allowed interest on his claim by the jury, so as to swell his claim beyond one thousand dollars. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is overruled.

## 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
# Scott v. Kelly/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
89 U.S. 57
Scott v. Kelly
The writ of error in this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The assignee in bankruptcy voluntarily submitted himself and his rights to the jurisdiction of the State court. Being summoned he appeared, without objection, and presented his claim for adjudication by that court. No effort was made to remove the litigation to the courts of the United States. It is now too late to object to the power of the State court to act in the premises and render judgment.
The question presented for the decision of the State court was not whether, if the bankrupt had title, it would pass to his assignee by the operation of the Bankrupt Act, but whether he had title at all. The court decided that he had not. Such a decision by a State court does not present a question of which this court can take jurisdiction upon a writ of error.
WRIT DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ Mays v. Fritton, 20 Wallace, 414.
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
# Scott v. Lloyd

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
37 U.S. 145
Scott v. Lloyd
IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
This case was before the Court at the January term, 1830, 4 Peters, 205; and again at January term, 1835, 9 Peters, 418. It now came up on a writ of error, prosecuted by the plaintiff in the circuit court. The questions involved in the case when it was before the Court in 1830 and 1835, and also in this case, are stated in the opinion of the Court. The competency of Jonathan Scolfield, who was examined as a witness for the defendant, was the only question in this writ of error.
The cause was argued by Mr. Jones, and Cox for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr. Key and Mr. Swann for the defendant.
For the plaintiff in error, the following cases were cited. Starkie's Evidence, 93, 94, 292; Phillips' Ev. chap. 5, sect. 4, p. 74; 7 East, 578; 1 Maule & Selwyn, 636; 10 East, 395; 5 Barnwell & Creswell, 188.
For the defendant, were cited, Willings v. Consequa, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 301; 1 Bandolph's Rep. 235; 6 Vesev Jr. 547; 1 Term Rep. 162; 7 Cranch, 271; 1 Wheat. 160; 1 Wheat. 60; 2 Starkie's Ev. 136; 1 Mumford's Rep. 398; 3 Call's Rep. 372; 6 Wendell's Rep. 415.
Mr. Justice M'LEAN 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
# Scott v. Lattig

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 229
Scott v. Lattig
Argued: December 13, 1912. --- Decided: February 3, 1913
Messrs. Oliver O. Haga, James H. Richards, and McKeen F. Morrow for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 230-236 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Karl Paine and Ira W. Kenward for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 236-239 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
# Shake-speares Sonnets, Never before Imprinted/Sonnet 126

This 'sonnet' consists of only 12 lines. The missing ones appear to be the final two, as indicated by the printer's use of two sets of empty parentheses.
# Shake-speares Sonnets, Never before Imprinted/Sonnet 131

Generally, each sonnet in this collection has the last two lines indented. In what is assumed to be a printer's error, only the penultimate line in this one is indented.
# Royal Naval Biography/Hockings, Robert

Layout 2
ROBERT HOCKINGS, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1821.]
Received his first commission in 1797; and was promoted to the rank of commander, for conducting a fire-vessel into Aix roads, April 11th, 1809; at which period he was serving as lieutenant of the Caledonia. On the 11th Sept. 1812, being then in the Dominica brig, on the Leeward Islands station, he captured the American privateer schooner Providence, of 12 guns and 60 men. His next appointment was, Dec. 26th, 1820, to the Medina ship-sloop, in which he afforded protection to the European consuls and merchants at Smyrna, during the horrid outrages perpetrated there, in June 1621, the whole of whom would, probably, have fallen victims to the ungovernable fury of the populace, had they not found an asylum on board the shipping in the roads; the ferocious and undisciplined band, after assassinating the Turkish governor, having compelled the Pacha of Cesarea to give them license to do what they chose.
Captain Hockings obtained post rank, July 19th, 1821; about which period he married Magdalena, eldest daughter of the late Gerard Montagu, of Burlington Hall, near Lowestoffe, in Norfolk, Esq.
Agents.– Messrs. Cooke, Halford, and Son.
# Royal Naval Biography/Hodge, Andrew

Layout 2
ANDREW HODGE, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant in 1800, and received the Turkish gold medal for his subsequent services in Egypt. His commission as commander bears date Dec. 4th, 1807, at which period he was employed in the West Indies.
# Royal Naval Biography/Hobson, William

Layout 2
WILLIAM HOBSON, Esq. [Captain of 1828.]
Passed his examination in Nov. 1811; and was promoted into the Peruvian sloop, Captain George Kippen, Nov. 11th, 1813. His subsequent appointments were, – Feb. 3d, 1818, to the Spey 20, Captain the Hon. Frederick Noel, fitting out for the Mediterranean station, where he greatly distinguished himself by the capture of an English piratical vessel; – Aug. 16th, 1821, to the Tyne 26, Captain James Kearney White, then in the West Indies: – and, Jan. 30th, 1823, to the command of the Lion schooner, employed in the suppression of piracy on the coast of Cuba. He obtained the rank of commander, Mar. 18th, 1824; and we afterwards find him in the Ferret and Scylla sloops, on the Jamaica station. His commission as captain bears date July 9th, 1828.
Agents.– Messrs. Atkins & Son.
# Royal Naval Biography/Hoffman, Frederick

Layout 2
FREDERICK HOFFMAN, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant in 1799; appointed acting commander of the Favorite sloop, on the African station, in July 1807; and promoted to his present rank, Feb. 22d, 1808, In the beginning of May 1812, he lost the Apelles sloop, that vessel, then under his command, having unfortunately run on shore to the westward of Boulogne, where himself and nineteen of his people were obliged to surrender as prisoners of war; the remainder of his officers and crew effected their escape, and the Apelles was very soon afterwards recaptured by the Bermuda sloop. Captain Alexander Cunningham.
# Royal Naval Biography/Holbech, George

Layout 2
GEORGE HOLBECH,, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant on the 16th June 1814; and in a few days afterwards appointed to the Rodney 74, Captain Charles Inglis. He subsequently served under Captain Samuel G. Pechell, in the Clorinde frigate. His promotion to the rank of commander took place on the 22d July 1830.
# Royal Naval Biography/Hodgson, Bryan

Layout 2
BRYAN HODGSON, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1806.]
WasWas made a Lieutenant, Dec. 11, 1799; promoted to the rank of Commander, April 8, 1805; and posted Jan. 22, 1806. During the latter part of the war, he commanded the Owen Glendower frigate, in the East Indies, from whence he returned to England in the spring of 1816. Mrs. Hodgson died on the continent, Nov. 11, 1824.
Agents.– Atkins and Son.
# Royal Naval Biography/Hodder, Edward

Layout 2
EDWARD HODDER, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1814.]
Was made lieutenant in 1794; commander April 27, 1801; appointed to the Tisiphone sloop, stationed off Lymington, April 13, 1813; and posted June 27, 1814.
​In April, 1820, Captain Hodder was assaulted in Hyde Park, by an armed black, who, under a threat of charging him with an offence of a detestable nature, extorted some money from him. Captain Hodder caused the miscreant to be instantly apprehended, and in the following month he was executed at the Old Bailey.
Captain Hodder died in France, at the commencement of the present year.
# Self-Interrogation

"'The evening passes fast away"
* "Self-Interrogation" in Poems by Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell (1846)
* "Self-Interrogation" in The Complete Poems of Emily Brontë (1908)
# Self-Love

HE that cannot choose but love, And strives against it still, Never shall my fancy move, For he loves against his will; Nor he which is all his own, And cannot pleasure choose; When I am caught he can be gone, And when he list refuse; Nor he that loves none but fair, For such by all are sought; Nor he that can for foul ones care, For his judgement then is nought; Nor he that hath wit, for he Will make me his jest or slave; Nor a fool when others — He can neither — Nor he that still his mistress prays, For she is thrall'd therefore; Nor he that pays, not, for he says Within, she's worth no more. Is there then no kind of men Whom I may freely prove? I will vent that humour then In mine own self-love.
Love yourself, you are beautiful
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