OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# California v. Southern Pacific Company (153 U.S. 239)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
153 U.S. 239
California v. Southern Pacific Company
PER CURIAM. The motion of the state of California, by its attorney general, in this behalf, having been considered: It is hereby ordered that depositions heretofore placed in the custody of the clerk of this court, as taken in this cause, may be opened and filed, together with the map exhibits therein referred to.
And it is further ordered that William A. Maury, Esq., of the District of Columbia, be, and he is hereby, designated and appointed a commissioner to take testimony herein, and he is hereby empowered and instructed to take and return such testimony as may be offered by either of the parties hereto, and to receive and return such documents and maps illustrative of the alleged title of the city of Oakland as said city may deem proper to offer, pursuant to the order of this court made herein on March 12, 1894.
It is further ordered that said commissioner notify the respective parties and the city of Oakland of his appointment; and thereupon, within 10 days thereafter, or as soon as convenient, he shall proceed to take such evidence as either of the parties hereto may produce; and he shall receive and take such documents and maps as may be offered by the city of Oakland under said order of March 12, 1894, as hereinbefore specified; and that the taking and receiving of said evidence, documents, and maps shall be completed and certified by said commissioner and forwarded to the clerk of this court on or before the first Monday of September, 1894, upon the receipt whereof the clerk is hereby instructed to open and file the same.
It is further ordered that in printing the record it shall not be necessary for the clerk to print copies of map exhibits, provided there shall be furnished to the court a sufficient number of map exhibits as required by the rules; and that the parties hereto, and the city of Oakland, are hereby permitted, during the vacation of this court, to file their briefs and points in said cause with the clerk without the further order of the court; and the question of setting said cause for hearing is hereby reserved until the next term.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# California v. San Pablo & T. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 308
California v. San Pablo & T. Railroad Company
Upon the fact most properly and frankly admitted in open court by the attorney general of the state of California, there can be no doubt that this writ of error must be dismissed, because the cause of action has ceased to exist. Any obligation of the defendant to pay to the state the sums sued for in this case, together with interest, penalties, and costs, has been extinguished by the offer to pay all these sums, and the deposit of the money in a bank, which by a statute of the state have the same effect as actual payment and receipt of the money; and the state has obtained everything that is could recover in this case by a judgment of this court in its favor. The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. When, it determining such rights, it becomes necessary to give an opinion upon a question of law, that opinion may have weight as a precedent for future decisions. But the court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.
The case at bar cannot be distinguished in principle from previous cases in which writs of error have been dismissed by this court under similar or analogous circumstances. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 255; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; San Mateo Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 116 U.S. 138, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 317; Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620; Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U.S. 696, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 103. See, Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 484.
Writ of error 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
# California v. Southern Pacific Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "California v. Southern Pacific Company."
* 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.
* California v. Southern Pacific Company (153 U.S. 239)
* California v. Southern Pacific Company (157 U.S. 229)
See also Southern Pacific Company v. California.
# Biographical Cyclopaedia of American Women

* related portals: Biography, United States, Women.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
New York: various publishing companies (transcription volumes: 1, 2, 3)
Volumes:
* Volume 1
* Volume 2
* Volume 3
This work was published in 1928 and is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or less since publication.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Biographic Report: Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel

* related portals: Central Intelligence Agency.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Written by CIA, this was one of several documents which revealed the United States had been spying on Israel
​Biographic Report
Yitzhak RABIN Prime Minister of Israel
Confidential
Confidential
BR-74-30
June 1974
# Bernards v. Morrison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
133 U.S. 523
Bernards v. Morrison
A. A. Clark, and Jas. R. English, for plaintiff in error.
Cortlandt Parker, for defendants in error.
BREWER, J.

## 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
# Berman v. United States (378 U.S. 530)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 530
Berman v. United States (378 U.S. 530)
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, as Mr. Justice GOLDBERG join, 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
# Bernardo Del Carpio

* Bernardo Del Carpio, in The New Monthly Magazine Volume 14, 1825.
* Bernardo Del Carpio, in Songs of the Affections, with Other Poems (Songs of the Affections), 1830.
# Bernards v. Johnson

United States Supreme Court
314 U.S. 19
Bernards v. Johnson
Argued: Oct. 14, 1941. --- Decided: Nov 10, 1941
Motion to Recall Mandate Denied Mar. 2, 1942.
See -- U.S. --, 62 S.Ct. 792, 86 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Wm. Lemke, of Fargo, N.D., and Martin J. Bernards, pro se, for petitioners.
Messrs. William L. Brewster and H. G. Platt, both of Portland, Or., for respondent.
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
# Berman v. United States (302 U.S. 211)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 211
Berman v. United States
Argued: Nov. 9, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1937
Mr. Samuel H. Kaufman, of New York City, for petitioner.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Mr. Wm. W. Barron, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Berman v. United States (378 U.S. 530)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 530
Berman v. United States (378 U.S. 530)
See 85 S.Ct. 14.
This case seems to me to be decided on the premise that it is more important that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure be slavishly followed than that justibe be done. I cannot agree to any such principle and therefore dissent.
Bernard B. Polak, New York City, for petitioner.
Theodore G. Gilinsky, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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
# Bourjois Inc v. Chapman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 183
Bourjois Inc v. Chapman
Argued: March 5, 1937. --- Decided: April 26, 1937
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of maine.
Messrs. Asher Blum, of New York City, and Robert Hale, of Portland, Me., for appellant.
Mr. Ralph W. Farris, of Augusta, Me., for appellees.
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
# Bourne v. Goodyear/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 811
Bourne v. Goodyear
The extension having expired before the bill was filed, there is no equity to support the application to set it aside. The extension has ceased to be of any effect, and there remains nothing which can be the subject of a suit. The demurrer to the bill, therefore, must be sustained, and the decree of the Circuit Court by which the bill was dismissed must be
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
# Boutell v. Walling

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 463
Boutell v. Walling
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 9, 1945. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1946
Messrs.Harry G. Gault, of Flint, Mich., and Glenn M. Coulter, of Detroit, Mich., for petitioners.
Bessie Margolin, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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
# Bourne v. Goodyear

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 811
Bourne v. Goodyear
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in which court, on the 15th of June, 1865, a proceeding was begun, in the name of the United States, ex relatione Bourne, against the executor of Goodyear, to vacate an extension of a patent. The bill showed that the extension of the patent sought to be vacated by the proceeding expired on the 14th of June, 1865; before the suit was commenced, and the defendant demurred to it on that ground among others. The court below dismissed the bill, and the relator brought the case here.
Messrs. T. H. Parsons, A. Payne, and C. Cushing, for the appellant; Messrs. E. W. Stoughton and W. E. Curtis, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE 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
# Bourjois Company v. Katzel

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 689
Bourjois Company v. Katzel
Argued: Jan. 18, 1923. --- Decided: Jan 29, 1923
Mr. Hans v. Briesen, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. John B. Doyle, of New York City, for respondent.
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
# Carter v. Ruddy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
166 U.S. 493
Carter v. Ruddy
J. R. McBride, Albert Allen, and W. B. Heyburn, for plaintiff in error.
Edgar Wilson, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Carter v. Roberts

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 496
Carter v. Roberts
Argued: April 9, 1900. --- Decided: April 23, 1900

## 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
# Carter v. Stanton
## Separate Opinion

    Douglas
Supreme Court of the United States
405 U.S. 669
Carter et al. v. Stanton, Director, Marion County Department of Public Welfare, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
No. 70-5082. Argued: November 8, 1971 --- Decided: April 3, 1972
Appellants' challenge to the Indiana welfare regulation that provides that a person who seeks assistance due to separation or the desertion of a spouse is not entitled to aid until the spouse has been continuously absent for at least six months, unless there are exceptional circumstances of need, was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and alternatively on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure of the pleadings to present a substantial federal question.
Held: The District Court plainly had jurisdiction, and exhaustion is not required in the circumstances of this case. Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416. If that court's characterization of the federal question as insubstantial was based on the face of the complaint, it was error; if the court treated the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, its order is unilluminating as to the relevant facts or the applicable law, and was improperly entered.
Vacated and remanded.
Jon D. Noland argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were John T. Manning and David F. Shadel.
Robert W. Geddes argued the cause for appellee Stanton. With him on the brief were Harold W. Jones and Carl J. Meyer. Mark Peden, Deputy Attorney General of Indiana, argued the cause for appellee Sterrett. With him on the brief were Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, William F. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, and William F. Harvey.
Solicitor General Griswold and Richard B. Stone filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
# Carter v. Virginia ex rel. Dickerson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 131
Carter v. Virginia ex rel. Dickerson
Argued: Jan. 6, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 31, 1944
Appeals from the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of virginia.
Mr. John S. Battle, of Charlottesville, Va., for appellants Carter and another.
Mr. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for appellants Dickerson and others.
Mr. Abram P. Staples, of Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Carter v. Texas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 442
Carter v. Texas
Argued: March 16, 1900. --- Decided: April 16, 1900
Messrs. Wilford H. Smith and E. M. Hewlett for plaintiff in error.
Mr. T. S. Smith for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Brown v. District of Columbia

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Brown v. District of Columbia."
* 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.
* Brown v. District of Columbia (127 U.S. 579)
* Brown v. District of Columbia (130 U.S. 87)
# Brown v. Duchesne

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 183
Brown v. Duchesne

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Brown v. Elliott

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
225 U.S. 392
Brown v. Elliott
Argued: October 19, 1911. ---
Ordered for reargument before a full bench December 18, 1911.
Reargued May 1, 1912.
Decided June 10, 1912.
Messrs. Henry F. Woodard and Arthur A. Birney for appellants.
Solicitor General Lehmann 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
# Brown v. District of Columbia (127 U.S. 579)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 579
Brown v. District of Columbia
C. C. Cole and Fillmore Beall, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Garland and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for appellee.
LAMAR, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Brown v. Davis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 237
Brown v. Davis
Argued: January 11, 1886. ---
E. E. Wood, Edw. Boyd, and B. F. Thurston, for appellants, Hiram L. Brown and others.
Wm. F. Cogswell and S. D. Bentley, for appellees, Charles F. Davis and others, Ex'rs, etc.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## 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
# Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA)/The Lectionary/The Common of Saints

​The Common of Saints
| | Psalm | Lessons |
| Of a Martyr I | 126 or 121 | 2 Esdras 2:42-48 1 Peter 3:14-18,22 Matthew 10:16-22 |
| Of a Martyr II | 116 or 116:1-8 | Ecclesiasticus 51:1-12 Revelation 7:13-17 Luke 12:2-12 |
| Of a Martyr III | 124 or 31:1-5 | Jeremiah 15:15-21 1 Peter 4:12-19 Mark 8:34-38 |
| Of a Missionary I | 96 or 96:1-7 | Isaiah 52:7-10 Acts 1:1-9 Luke 10:1-9 |
| Of a Missionary II | 98 or 98:1-4 | Isaiah 49:1-6 Acts 17:22-31 Matthew 28:16-20 ​ |
| Of a Pastor I | 23 | Ezekiel 34:11-16 1 Peter 5:1-4 John 21:15-17 |
| Of a Pastor II | 84 or 84:7-11 | Acts 20:17-35 Ephesians 3:14-21 Matthew 24:42-47 |
| Of a Theologian and Teacher I | 119:97-104 | Wisdom 7:7-14 1 Corinthians 2:6-10,13-16 John 17:18-23 |
| Of a Theologian and Teacher II | 119:89-96 | Proverbs 3:1-7 1 Corinthians 3:5-11 Matthew 13:47-52 |
| Of a Monastic I | 34 or 34:1-8 | Song of Songs 8:6-7 Philippians 3:7-15 Luke 12:33-37 or Luke 9:57-62 |
| Of a Monastic II | 133 or 119:161-168 | Acts 2:42-47a 2 Corinthians 6:1-10 Matthew 6:24-33 |
| Of a Saint I | 15 | Micah 6:6-8 Hebrews 12:1-2 Matthew 25:31-40 |
| Of a Saint II | 34 or 34:15-22 | Wisdom 3:1-9 Philippians 4:4-9 Luke 6:17-23 |
| Of a Saint III | 1 | Ecclesiasticus 2:7-11 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 Matthew 25:1-13 |
# Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent/Session XXV/Choice of Food; Fasts, and Festival Days

ON CHOICE OF FOOD; ON FASTS, AND FESTIVAL DAYS.
The holy synod furthermore exhorts, and, by the most holy advent of our Lord and Saviour, conjures all pastors, that, like good soldiers, they sedulously recommend to all the faithful all those things which the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, has ordained, as also those things which, as well in this council as in the other œcumenical councils, have been ordained, and that they use all diligence, to the end that they be observant of all things thereof, and especially of those which conduce to mortify the flesh, such as the choice of food and fasts; as also those which tend to promote piety, such as the devout and religious celebration of festival days; often admonishing the people to obey those set over them, whom they who hear shall hear God as a rewarder, whilst they who contemn them shall feel God himself as an avenger.