OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Grubb v. Oklahoma/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Order of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Brennan
[p1017] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL concur, dissenting.
Petitioner and Lynette Murphy lived together as husband and wife in Collinsville, Oklahoma, from September 1970 through the end of January 1971. After leaving petitioner, Lynette went to live with her sister and brother-in-law, Lana and Larry Sanders, in Collinsville. At approximately 8 p.m. on February 2, 1971, petitioner went to the Sanders' residence, displayed a gun, and informed Gary Hany, another occupant, that he intended to take Lynette with him. After a wait of approximately 45 minutes, Lynette, Lana, and Larry arrived at the residence. Petitioner told Lynette that if she refused to go with him he would kill them all. Lynette became "kind of shook up" and agreed to go. Petitioner then [p1018] took Larry Sanders' money (three dollars) and car keys, and left with Lynette in the Sanders' car. After an extensive chase, petitioner was apprehended by the Oklahoma police and was charged with kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
Although all of these charges arose out of the "same transaction or occurrence," they were prosecuted by the State in two separate proceedings. At the first trial, petitioner was convicted of the armed robbery of Larry Sanders. At the second trial, he was convicted of kidnapping Lynette Murphy, and was acquitted of a charge of armed robbery of Lana Sanders. Petitioner's contention that this second prosecution was barred by the provisions against double jeopardy in both the State and Federal Constitutions was rejected by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, one judge dissenting. Grubb v. State, 497 P.2d 1305 (1972).
I would grant the petition for certiorari and reverse. I adhere to my view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), requires the prosecution, except in most limited circumstances not present here, "to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (concurring opinion); see Miller v. Oregon, [p1019] 405 U.S. 1047 (1972) (dissenting opinion); Harris v. Washington, 404 U.S. 55, 57 (1971) (concurring opinion). Under this "same transaction" test, all charges against petitioner should have been brought in a single prosecution.

## Notes

* ↑ The charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it violated petitioner's right against double jeopardy. The court apparently ruled that the prosecution for armed robbery of Larry Sanders, which included the forcible taking of Sanders' car keys, precluded an additional prosecution for unauthorized use of the vehicle itself.
# Oregon State Elks Association v. Falkenstein
## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
Supreme Court of the United States
409 U.S. 1032
Oregon State Elks Assn. et al. v. Falkenstein et al.
On Application for Stay from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
No. A-552 (72-640). Argued: N/A --- Decided: December 4, 1972
Application for stay of judgment presented to MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
# Selections from the American Poets/Table of Contents

Layout 2
CONTENTS.
# Selections from the American Poets/Columbus to Ferdinand

Layout 2
COLUMBUS TO FERDINAND.
Columbus was a considerable number of years engaged in soliciting the court of Spain to fit him out, in order to discover a new continent, which he imagined to exist somewhere in the western parts of the ocean. During his negotiations, he is here supposed to address King Ferdinand in the following stanzas.
# Selections from the American Poets/The Dying Indian

Layout 2
THE DYING INDIAN.—Tomo-Chequi
# Schlesinger v. Laird
## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
Supreme Court of the United States
409 U.S. 1056
Schlesinger v. Laird, Secretary of Defense, et al.
On Application for Stay from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
No. A-603. Argued: N/A --- Decided: December 11, 1972
Application for stay presented to MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
# The Indian Burying-Ground

* "The Indian Burying-ground", published in Selections from the American Poets (1840)
* "The Indian Burying-Ground", published in The Poets and Poetry of America (1842)
This work was published before January 1, 1930, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Selections from the American Poets/The Indian Burying-ground

Layout 2
THE INDIAN BURYING-GROUND.
# The Poets and Poetry of America/The Indian Burying-Ground

In spite of all the learn'd have said,  I still my old opinion keep; The posture that we give the dead,  Points out the soul's eternal sleep.
Not so the ancients of these lands—  The Indian, when from life released, Again is seated with his friends,  And shares again the joyous feast.
His imaged birds, and painted bowl,  And venison, for a journey dress'd, Bespeak the nature of the soul,  Activitiy, that knows no rest.
His bow, for action ready bent,  And arrows, with a head of stone, Can only mean that life is spent,  And not the old ideas gone.
Thou, stranger, that shalt come this way,  No fraud upon the dead commit— Observe the swelling turf, any say  They do not lie, but here they sit.
Here still a lofty rocky remains,  On which the curious eye may trace (Now wasted, half, by wearing rains)  The fancies of a ruder race.
Here still an aged elm aspires,  Beneath whose far-projecting shade (And which the shepherd still admires)  The children of the forest play'd!
There oft a restless Indian queen  (Pale Shebah, with her braided hair) And many a barbarous form is seen  To chide the man that lingers there.
By midnight moons, o'er moistening dews,  In habit for the chase array'd The hunter still the deer pursues,  The hunter and the deer, a shade!
And long shall timorous fancy see  The painted chief and pointed spear; And Reason's self shall bow the knee  To shadows and delusions here.
# Nugent v. United States
## Dissenting Opinion

    White
Supreme Court of the United States
409 U.S. 1065
Nugent v. United States
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
No. 72-5301. Argued: N/A --- Decided: December 11, 1972
Certiorari denied.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, dissenting.
# Nugent v. United States/Dissent White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Order of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion White
[p1065] MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, dissenting.
Acting on an informant's tip that one "Cherokee" had a mill for diluting narcotics in a certain apartment building, police officers secured the consent of the landlord to search, and then searched the basement area of the building open to use by both landlord and tenants. In one storage room they saw a closed but unlocked trunk, on top of which were a can of milk-sugar, a scale, rubber bands, and a brown paper bag with a message telling Cherokee that "we are out of... action." The trunk was then opened. Heroin and narcotics paraphernalia were discovered, seized, and used against Cherokee who was later arrested and tried.
Whether the search of the trunk and seizure of its contents squared with the Fourth Amendment is a substantial question warranting review here. The seizure was not incident to petitioner's arrest, which occurred later at another place. The officers were legally in the storage room by virtue of the landlord's consent, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740 (1969), but nothing in the trunk was in plain view as long as the trunk was unopened, and it would seem that the landlord had no authority whatsoever to consent to the search of the trunk or the seizure of its contents, which were petitioner's effects within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
The United States argues that there was probable cause to search the trunk and a warrant should not be required, because the items sought could be so easily moved. The Court has embraced such a rationale in the Carroll-Chambers line of cases with respect to automobiles, but [p1066] has expressly questioned this approach with respect to other movable personal property. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461 n. 18 (1971) ("We have found no case that suggests such an extension of Caroll" to "containers" that are "equally movable, e.g., trunks, suitcases, boxes, briefcases, and bags"). Moreover, in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), searches incident to arrest were limited to the person and immediate vicinity, even though there is clearly probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of crime will be found elsewhere on the premises where the arrest takes place. The Court there rejected the argument urged in dissent that a warrant could be dispensed with to avoid the disappearance of the property for which there was probable cause to search.
Because the decision below is arguably at odds with decisions of this Court, I would grant the petition for certiorari.
# Smith v. United States (409 U.S. 1066)
## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
Supreme Court of the United States
409 U.S. 1066
Smith et al. v. United States
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 72-5455. Argued: N/A --- Decided: December 11, 1972
Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 464 F.2d 194.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN concurs, dissenting.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 68

Chap. LXVIII.—An Act for the relief of the heirs of James Hynum.
Donation of land.Be it enacted, &c., That the heirs of James Hynum, of the Mississippi territory, shall be entitled to a donation of two hundred and twenty-six acres of land, according to the provisions of an act of Congress, passed the third day of March, in the year one thousand eight hundred and three, entitledAct of March 3, 1803, ch. 27. “An act regulating the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the State of Tennessee,” to be located, surveyed, and granted, in the manner prescribed in the said recited act; and to be subject to the dower of the widow of the said James Hynum, as fully and completely as if the title to the said land had been vested in the said James Hynum.
Payments on said land to be refunded.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That all sums of money paid by Margaret Hynum, widow of the said James Hynum, since the death of the said James, as part of the price of the said land, in contemplation of a purchase thereof, shall be refunded to the said Margaret; and the receiver of public moneys in the land ​district west of Pearl river, is hereby directed to pay the same to the said Margaret, out of any public money now in his hands, or which may hereafter come to his hands.
Approved, March 1, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 71

Chap. LXXI.—An Act authorizing the discharge of Edward Martin from imprisonment.
To be discharged from imprisonment.Be it enacted, &c., That the marshal of the district of Rhode Island be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed, to discharge from imprisonment Edward Martin of Newport, in the state of Rhode Island, now confined in jail at Newport, in said district, at the suit of the United States: Provided, That the said Edward Martin shall remain liable to the United States for the amount of the bond executed by Andrew Oburg, captain of the Swedish schooner Lichlighten, as principal, and by the said Martin and George W. Martin, sureties, and renew his obligation to the United States for said amount, payable in two years from the day of his discharge, in such form as the attorney of the United States for the district aforesaid shall think proper.
Approved, March 3, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 70

Chap. LXX.—An Act concerning the college of Georgetown, in the District of Columbia.
May confer degrees.Be it enacted, &c., That it shall and may be lawful for such persons as now are, or from time to time may be, the president and directors of the college of Georgetown, within the district of Columbia, to admit any of the students belonging to said college, or other persons meriting academical honors, to any degree in the faculties, arts, sciences, and liberal professions, to which persons are usually admitted in other colleges or universities of the United States; and to issue, in an appropriate form, the diplomas or certificates, which may be requisite to testify the admission to such degrees.
Approved, March 1, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 76

Chap. LXXVI.—An Act for the relief of William P. Bennet, of the State of New York.
To be discharged from imprisonment. Act of June 6, 1798, ch. 49.Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby authorized and required to discharge from his imprisonment William P. Bennet, of Seneca county, in the State of New York: Provided, however, That the said Bennet shall, previous to obtaining such discharge, comply with the provisions of the act, entitled “An act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debts due to the United States”
Approved, March 3, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 75

Chap. LXXV.—An Act for the relief of the Eastern Branch Bridge Company.
To be compensated for damage to the bridge.Be it enacted, &c., That the proper accounting officers of the navy department be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to settle the claim of the Eastern Branch Bridge Company, on account of the injury done their bridge, by an order from the navy department, by ascertaining, or causing to be ascertained, the value of such injury, in such manner, and upon such terms, as may be just and reasonable.
Appropriation.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the amount thereof, when so ascertained, shall be paid to the president and directors of the said company, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be applied to the repairing or rebuilding of the said bridge.
Approved, March 3, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 78

Chap. LXXVIII.—An Act for the relief of the Anacosta Bridge Company.
To be compensated for the destruction of their bridge.Be it enacted, &c., That the proper accounting officers of the war department be, and they are hereby, directed to audit and settle the claim of the Anacosta Bridge Company, on account of the injury sustained by them in the destruction of their bridge over the Eastern Branch of the Potomac, by ascertaining, or causing to be ascertained, the value of the injury thereof, at the time of such destruction, in such manner, and upon such terms, as may embrace the merits of their claim.
Appropriation.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the amount of such valuation, when so ascertained, shall be paid to the said company, or their agent, legally authorized, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, upon such company, or owners, releasing to the United States all claim on account of the injury aforesaid, and that the same be applied to the purpose of rebuilding or repairing the said bridge.
Approved, March 3, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 83

Chap. LXXXIII.—An Act for the relief of Thomas Sprigg.
Claim for destruction of ropewalk, &c. to be settled.Be it enacted, &c., That the proper accounting officers of the navy department be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to audit and settle the claim of Thomas Sprigg, on account of the destruction of a quantity of hempen yarns, in the ropewalk, in the vicinity of Baltimore, which were destroyed by order of General Foreman, by ascertaining, or causing to be ascertained, the value of the yarns, in such manner and upon such terms as may be just and reasonable.
Appropriation.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the amount of the said valuation, when ascertained as aforesaid, shall be paid to the said Thomas Sprigg, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, March 3, 1815.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/13th Congress/3rd Session/Chapter 84

Chap. LXXXIV.—An Act for the relief of sundry persons in the service of the United States, in consequence of the destruction of their tools by fire at the navy-yard.
Workman to be paid for the destruction of their tools, &c.Be it enacted, &c., That the accounting officers of the navy be, and they are hereby directed to adjust and settle all claims for losses that have been sustained by artificers, mechanics, and other workmen, in the employ and service of the United States, for tools and other articles essential to, and connected with, their trade and occupation, which have been destroyed by fire, in consequence of burning the buildings of the navy yard, in the city of Washington, and to cause to be paid over to such persons respectively, the amount found due for such losses.
Appropriation.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to carry into effect the objects of this act.
Approved, March 3, 1815.
# Weird Tales/Volume 4/Issue 2/Singular Combat

Singular Combat
In the reign of Henry IV., twelve English Barons gave out that certain ladies, whom they named, were not entitled, by birth, beauty, or education, to the high rank they held at court; and that they would take up arms against any twelve champions in Europe who dare come forth in their defense. Intimation of this challenge was received in Portugal, and as none had hitherto undertaken to appear in defense of the injured ladies, Magrico, with eleven other Portuguese cavaliers, set out from Oporto to espouse their cause; having previously obtained permission from their sovereign, John I. The English monarch, on being apprised of their arrival, prepared a splendid banquet suitable to the occasion; to him was left to choose the arms to be used by the combatants, and to appoint the day and the situation, which was on the south banks of the Thames. The spectators being assembled in a vast amphitheatre, the champions rode into the arena at the sound of the trumpet, each armed with a sword and lance. Upon the appearance of the Portuguese, the circle resounded with applause, particularly on the part of the ladies, who were present. As soon as the king, who presided at the spectacle, had given the signal, the attack commenced, and was maintained for a considerable time with great skill and courage on both sides, insomuch, that victory for some time remained doubtful. The Portuguese, however, being very expert at the lance, and animated by the cheers of the ladies, wounded several of the adversaries, and unhorsed others; so that at length the king proclaimed the conquerors. The ladies now, with acclamations of joy, assembled round the victors; crowned them with chaplets of roses, interwoven with ribbands, which they carried off in triumph. And further to express their gratitude, at the departure of their gallant defenders, they presented them with swords, spears, and shields, ornamented with various devices, as trophies of their victory. Nor were the honors less which awaited them at their return to Portugal; they were received in triumph, and caressed by the ladies, whose cause they vowed to defend all over the world.
# The Fisher Maiden

The Fisher Maiden.
by
Björnstjerne Björnson.
Translated from the Norse
by
Rasmus B. Anderson,
Author of “Norse Mythology,” “Viking Tales of the North,” “America Not Discovered by Columbus,” and other works.
Author’s Edition.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. New York: 11 East Seventeenth Street. The Riverside Press, Cambridge. 1882.
Copyright, 1882, By Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
All rights reserved.
The Riverside Press, Cambridge: Stereotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton & Co.
Publishers' Note.
The present edition of Björnstjerne Björnson’s Works is published by special arrangement with the author. Mr. Björnson has designated Prof. Rasmus B. Anderson as his American translator, coöperates with him, and revises each work before it is translated, thus giving his personal attention to this edition.
Preface.
The Fisher Maiden was written in 1867 and 1868, and was published simultaneously in Norway and Germany. The popularity of the story is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that it has appeared in four German and in two English translations, the present being the third.
The characters are, perhaps, less ideal than those of his peasant stories, and the style throughout indicates that the author has entered upon a new era in his literary development. His aim here is to show how irresistible is the power of innate vocation and natural talent, and to vindicate the theatre as a place not only of amusement, but also of instruction, against the unjust criticisms of the clergy.
In the weird poem, in the eleventh chapter, on the young viking, Mr. Björnson depicts, in strangely profound sentences, his own career, his early struggles, and the victory he so quickly gained. Indeed, as Björnson said to me in 1872, the Fisher Maiden is Björnson himself, and in the young viking he ​has given, in a few enigmatic strokes, a picture of both the heroine and the author. Nowhere does Mr. Björnson’s patriotism burst forth in purer and nobler strains than in the short poem that follows soon after that on the young viking. It is all aglow with love and pride and confidence and hope, and is a perfect mirror of the poet’s feelings and aspirations in the midst of his great success.
The poems in this volume are translated by Augusta Plesner and Frederika Richardson, with the exception of the one at the end of chapter iv., beginning, “Ah, sweet is Love’s first meeting!” and the one in chapter ix., beginning “Joy now is kindled,” both of which are by Auber Forestier. Music has been written for “Ah, sweet is Love’s first meeting,” by Halfdan Kjerulf, and for “Joy now is kindled,” by Edward Grieg. The latter may be found in the “Norway Music Album.”
Rasmus B. Anderson. Asgard, Madison, Wisconsin. March, 1882.
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.