OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# The Minority of One

* Volume 1 (December 1959)
* Volume 2 (January 1960 to December 1960)
* Volume 3 (January 1961 to December 1961)
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works could have had their copyright renewed between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st of the 29th year.
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
# The Minority of One

Volumes
* Volume 1 - (December 1959)
* Volume 2 - (January 1960 to December 1960)
* Volume 3 - (January 1961 to December 1961)
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works could have had their copyright renewed between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st of the 29th year.
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
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Caftan

See also Kaftan on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CAFTAN, or Kaftan ( a (Moroccan, also used in the Maghreb), is a long-sleeved, flowing undergarment, belted at the waist, worn by men and women in the Kingdom of Morocco. Worn by the upper and middle classes of Morocco from the Almohad dynasty to the present, the kaftan is a symbol of nobility, elegance, heritage, and identity in Morocco.
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Caftan

See also Kaftan on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CAFTAN, or Kaftan ( a Moroccan, also used in the Maghreb), is a long-sleeved, flowing undergarment, belted at the waist, worn by men and women in the Kingdom of Morocco. Worn by the upper and middle classes of Morocco from the Almohad dynasty to the present, the kaftan is a symbol of nobility, elegance, heritage, and identity in Morocco.
# Ortwein v. Schwab/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Brennan Marshall
[p661] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.
Although I am in substantial agreement with my Brothers DOUGLAS and MARSHALL that this case is distinguishable from our recent decision in United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973), I see no reason to set this case for argument in light of the majority's firmly held view that Kras is controlling. On the merits, I would reverse for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 386 (1971) (concurring in part). See also United States v. Kras, supra, at 457 (opinion of DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ.).
# Ortwein v. Schwab/Dissent Marshall

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Brennan Marshall
[p665] MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
I adhere to my dissenting opinion in United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 458 (1973), and would reverse the judgment on that basis. But even were I to accept the majority position in Kras, there are still important differences between that case and this one which, in my judgment, require that this case be set for argument.
In Kras, the majority correctly noted that "[t]here is no constitutional right to obtain a discharge of one's debts in bankruptcy." Id., at 446. Therefore, the only issue in the case was whether the Government could, on the basis of a de facto wealth classification, limit access to a remedy which it could concededly deny altogether.
The question here is quite different. Appellants seek a judicial remedy for the action of an administrative agency which deprived them of a pre-existing right. As my Brother DOUGLAS demonstrates, it is at very least doubtful that the Due Process Clause permits a State to shield an administrative agency from all judicial review when that agency acts to revoke a benefit previously granted. I share the view of Mr. Justice Brandeis that "[t]he supremacy of law demand that there shall be opportunity to have some court decide whether an erroneous rule of law was applied; and whether the proceeding in which facts were adjudicated was conducted [p666] regularly." St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 84 (1936) (concurring opinion). Cf. Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932).
That opportunity was denied in this case, and important benefits were thereby taken from appellants without affording them a chance to contest the legality of the taking in a court of law. Cf. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972).
The extent to which the State may commit to administrative agencies the unreviewable authority to restrict pre-existing rights is one of the great questions of constitutional law about which courts and commentators have debated for generations. See generally Hart, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1362 (1953); 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.18 (1958). Because I am not ready to decide that question summarily, sub silentio, and without the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, I must dissent from the Court's decision.

## Notes

* ↑ The majority's statement that "[t]his Court has long recognized that, even in criminal cases, due process does not require a State to provide an appellate system," ante, at 660, is thus true, but irrelevant and misleading. The cases cited by the majority all involve efforts to secure appellate review of a decision by a lower court. Here, in contrast, no court has ever examined appellants' claims on the merits. Appellants assert only that they must have some access to some court to contest the legality of administrative action adversely affecting them.
# Ortwein v. Schwab/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Brennan Marshall
[p664] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.
Although I am in substantial agreement with my Brothers DOUGLAS and MARSHALL that this case is distinguishable from our recent decision in United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973), I see no reason to set this case for argument in light of the majority's firmly held view that Kras is controlling. On the merits, I would reverse for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 386 (1971) (concurring in part). See also United States v. Kras, supra, at 457 (opinion of DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ.).
# Heracleidae (Euripides)

* related portals: Ancient Greek drama
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item
Ἡρακλεῖδαι (Hērakleidai, Latin: Heracleidae), or The Children of Heracles, is a tragedy by Euripides, first produced circa 430 BCE. It follows the children of Heracles as they seek protection from King Eurystheus of Mycenae. It is the first of two surviving tragedies by Euripides where the children of Heracles are suppliants. Warning: template has been deprecated.
English-language translations of Ἡρακλεῖδαι include:
* The Heraclidæ, translated by Robert Potter (1781, 1783) 1st ed.
* The Heraclidæ, translated by T. A. Buckley (1858)
* Heracleidæ, translated from the Paley text by E. P. Coleridge in The Plays of Euripides (1891) 1910 printing
* The Children of Herakles, translated by Arthur S. Way in The Tragedies of Euripides, in English verse (1896)
This work was published before January 1, 1930, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Papish v. Board of Curators

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States
* sister projects: Wikipedia article
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) is a court case that overturned a lower court ruling upholding the expulsion of Barbara Susan Papish, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, for "indecent speech." The court rejected the notion that such content-based discipline could be justified, and ruled that public universities could not punish students for offensive speech that did not cause disruption or interfere with the rights of others. The Court held that the school's expulsion of Papish violated the First Amendment.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Burger
    Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
410 U.S. 667
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al.
On Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
No. 72-794. Argued: N/A --- Decided: March 19, 1973
Expulsion of student for distributing on campus a publication assertedly containing "indecent speech" proscribed by a bylaw of a state university's Board of Curators held an impermissible violation of her First Amendment free speech rights since the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus cannot be proscribed in the name of "conventions of decency."
Certiorari granted; 464 F.2d 136, reversed.
PER CURIAM.
[[Category:1973 court decisions]
# Papish v. Board of Curators

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States
* sister projects: Wikipedia article
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) is a court case that overturned a lower court ruling upholding the expulsion of Barbara Susan Papish, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, for "indecent speech." The court rejected the notion that such content-based discipline could be justified, and ruled that public universities could not punish students for offensive speech that did not cause disruption or interfere with the rights of others. The Court held that the school's expulsion of Papish violated the First Amendment.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Burger
    Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
410 U.S. 667
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al.
On Petition For Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
No. 72-794. Argued: N/A --- Decided: March 19, 1973
Expulsion of student for distributing on campus a publication assertedly containing "indecent speech" proscribed by a bylaw of a state university's Board of Curators held an impermissible violation of her First Amendment free speech rights since the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus cannot be proscribed in the name of "conventions of decency."
Certiorari granted; 464 F.2d 136, reversed.
PER CURIAM.