OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hughes v. Washington

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 290
Hughes v. Washington
Argued: Nov. 6, 1967. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1967
Charles B. Welsh, South Bend, Wash., for petitioner.
Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Harold T. Hartinger, Olympia, Wash., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Hughes v. WMCA, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 694
Hughes v. WMCA, Inc.
Levin Nock DAVIS, Secretary, State Board of
Elections, et al.
v.
Harrison MANN et al.
No. 718. Supreme Court of the United States
February 1, 1965
John H. Hughes, pro se.
Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, R. D. McIlwaine III, Asst. Atty. Gen., David J. Mays and Henry T. Wickham, for appellants Davis and others.
Edmund D. Campbell and E. A. Prichard, for appellees Mann and others.
Henry E. Howell, Jr., Leonard B. Sachs and Sidney H. Kelsey, for appellees Glanville and others.
Leonard B. Sand, Max Gross, Leo A. Larkin, Jack B. Weinstein and Robert B. McKay, for appellees WMCA, Inc., and others.
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
# Graver v. Faurot

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 435
Graver v. Faurot
This case coming on to be heard on appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois, in the United States circuit court of appeals for the Seventh circuit, that court ordered that a statement of facts and a question be certified to this court for its opinion and instruction.
It appears, from the statement of facts, that William Graver filed a bill in the superior court of the county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, to impeach for fraud a decree in equity rendered by that court, July 6, 1889, in a certain suit therein depending, wherein William Graver was complainant and Benjamin C. Faurot and A. O. Bailey were defendants, by which decree complainant's bill was dismissed for want of equity; and that the suit was duly and properly removed into the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois.
The bill thus filed was set forth in haec verba, together with a demurrer thereto, the decree of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill, and the opinion rendered by the circuit court on entering that decree.
The certificate then proceeded thus: 'In view of the decisions of the supreme court of the United States in the cases of U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, and Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589, 12 Sup. Ct. 62, this court is in doubt touching the case in hand, and desires advice and instruction upon the following question: Whether (assuming the bill of complaint to be in other respects sufficient) the alleged false swearing and perjury in the respective answers of defendants in the original suit in the superior court of the county of Cook, state of Illinois, are, in the law, available in this suit as ground for a decree setting aside and declaring void the decree so rendered in the superior court of the county of Cook.' Robert Rae, for appellant.
Frank L. Wean, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, 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
# Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950), was an important United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, and explaining how and when it was to be used. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 605
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company
Argued: March 30, 1950. --- Decided: May 29, 1950
Motion to Issue Mandate Denied June 5, 1950.
See 70 S.Ct. 1017.
Mr. Thomas V. Koykka, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners.
Mr. John T. Cahill, New York City, Richard R. Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Black Douglas
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 605
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company
Argued: March 30, 1950. --- Decided: May 29, 1950
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
The Court applies the doctrine of equivalents in a way which subverts the constitutional and statutory scheme for the grant and use of patents.
The claims of the patent are limited to a flux 'containing a major proportion of alkaline earth metal silicate.' Manganese silicate, the flux which is held to infringe, is not an alkaline earth metal silicate. It was disclosed in the application and then excluded from the claims. It therefore became public property. See Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, 361, 5 S.Ct. 174, 178, 6 S.Ct. 451, 28 L.Ed. 665. It was, to be sure, mentioned in the specifications. But the measure of the grant is to be found in the claims, not in the specifications. Milcor Steel Co. v. Fuller Co., 316 U.S. 143, 145, 146, 62 S.Ct. 969, 970, 971, 86 L.Ed. 1332. The specifications can be used to limit but never to expand the claim. See McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424, 12 S.Ct. 76, 77, 35 L.Ed. 800.
The Court now allows the doctrine of equivalents to erase those time-honored rules. Moreover, a doctrine which is said to protect against practicing 'a fraud on a patent' is used to extend a patent to a composition which could not be patented. For manganese silicate had been covered by prior patents, now expired. Thus we end with a strange anomaly: a monopoly is obtained on an unpatented and unpatentable article.

## 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
# Graver Tank Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 271
Graver Tank Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company
Argued: Jan. 5, 6, 1949. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1949
See 337 U.S. 910, 69 S.Ct. 1046.
Mr. Thomas V. Koykka, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners.
Messrs. John T. Cahill, of New York City, and Richard R. Wolfe, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 845
Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company

## 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
# Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 845
Graver Tank and Manufacturing Company v. Linde Air Products Company
Petition for rehearing denied.
Mr. Justice MINTON took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.

## 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
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 9

ix.
Fair ship, that from the Italian shore, Sailest the placid ocean-plains With my lost Arthur's loved remains, Spread thy full wings, and waft him o'er.
So draw him home to those that mourn In vain; a favourable speed Ruffle thy mirror'd mast, and lead Thro' prosperous floods his holy urn.
All night no ruder air perplex Thy sliding keel, till Phosphor, bright As our pure love, thro' early light Shall glimmer on the dewy decks.
Sphere all your lights around, above; Sleep, gentle heavens, before the prow; Sleep, gentle winds, as he sleeps now, My friend, the brother of my love.
My Arthur! whom I shall not see Till all my widow'd race be run; Dear as the mother to the son, More than my brothers are to me.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 90

xc.
If any vision should reveal Thy likeness, I might count it vain As but the canker of the brain; Yea, though it spake and made appeal
To chances where our lots were cast Together in the days behind, I might but say, I hear a wind OF memory murmuring the past.
Yea, tho' it spake and bared to view A fact within the coming year; And tho' the months, revolving near, Should prove the phantom-warning true,
They might not seem thy prophecies, But spiritual presentiments, And such refraction of events As often rises ere they rise.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 92

xcii.
How pure at heart and sound in head, With what divine affections bold Should be the man whose thought would hold An hour's communion with the dead.
In vain shalt thou, or any, call The spirits from their golden day, Except, like them, thou too canst say My spirit is at peace with all.
They haunt the silence of the breast, Imaginations calm and fair, The memory like a cloudless air, The conscience as a sea at rest:
But when the heart is full of din, And doubt beside the portal waits, They can but listen at the gates And hear the household jar within.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 89

lxxxix.
When rosy plumelets tuft the larch,
And rarely pipes the mounted thrush;
Or underneath the barren bush
Flits by the sea-blue bird of March;
Come, wear the form by which I know
Thy spirit in time among thy peers;
The hope of unaccomplish'd years
Be large and lucid round thy brow.
When summer's hourly-mellowing change
May breathe with many roses sweet
Upon the thousand waves of wheat,
That ripple round the lonely grange;
Come: not in watches of the night,
But where the sunbeam broodeth warm,
Come, beauteous in thine after form,
And like a finer light in light.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 85

lxxxv.
I past beside the reverend walls In which of old I wore the gown; I roved at random through the town, And saw the tumult of the halls;
And heard once more in college fanes The storm their high-built organs make, And thunder-music, rolling, shake The prophets blazon'd on the panes;
And caught once more the distant shout, The measured pulse of racing oars Among the willows; paced the shores And many a bridge, and all about
The same gray flats again, and felt The same, but not the same; and last Up that long walk of limes I past To see the rooms in which he dwelt.
Another name was on the door: I linger'd; all within was noise Of songs, and clapping hands, and boys That crash'd the glass and beat the floor;
Where once we held debate, a band Of youthful friends, on mind and art, And labour, and the changing mart, And all the framework of the land;
When one would aim an arrow fair, But send it slackly from the string; And one would pierce an outer ring, And one an inner, here and there;
And last the master-bowman, he Would cleave the mark. A willing ear We lent him. Who, but hung to hear The rapt oration flowing free
From point to point with power and grace, And music in the bounds of law, To those conclusions when we saw The God within him light his face,
And seem to lift the form, and glow In azure orbits heavenly-wise; And over those ethereal eyes The bar of Michael Angelo.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 87

lxxxvii.
Witch-elms that counterchange the floor Of this flat lawn with dusk and bright: And thou, with all thy breadth and height Of foliage, towering sycamore;
How often, hither wandering down, My Arthur found your shadows fair, And shook to all the liberal air The dust and din and steam of town:
He brought an eye for all he saw; He mixt in all our simple sports; They pleased him, fresh from brawling courts And dusky purlieus of the law.
O joy to him in this retreat, Immantled in ambrosial dark, To drink the cooler air, and mark The landscape winking through the heat:
O sound to rout the brood of cares, The sweep of scythe in morning dew, The gust that round the garden flew, And tumbled half the mellowing pears!
O bliss, when all in circle drawn About him, heart and ear were fed To hear him, as he lay and read The Tuscan poets on the lawn:
Or in the all-golden afternoon A guest, or happy sister, sung, Or here she brought the harp and flung A ballad to the brightening moon:
Nor less it pleased in livelier moods, Beyond the bounding hill to stray, And break the livelong summer day With banquet in the distant woods;
Whereat we glanced from theme to theme, Discuss'd the books to love or hate, Or touch'd the changes of the state, Or threaded some Socratic dream;
But if I praised the busy town, He loved to rail against it still, For 'ground in yonder social mill We rub each other's angles down,
And merge' he said 'in form and gloss The picturesque of man and man.' We talk'd: the stream beneath us ran, The wine-flask lying couch'd in moss,
Or cool'd within the glooming wave And last, returning from afar, Before the crimson-circled star Had fall'n into her father's grave,
And brushing ankle-deep in flowers, We heard behind the woodbine veil The milk that bubbled in the pail, And buzzings of the honied hours.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 88

lxxxviii.
He tasted love with half his mind, Nor ever drank the inviolate spring Where nighest heaven, who first could fling This bitter seed among mankind;
That could the dead, whose dying eyes Were closed with wail, resume their life, They would but find in child and wife An iron welcome when they rise:
'Twas well, indeed, when warm with wine, To pledge them with a kindly tear: To talk them o'er, to wish them here, To count their memories half divine;
But if they came who past away, Behold their brides in other hands: The hard heir strides about their lands, And will not yield them for a day.
Yea, tho' their sons were none of these, Not less the yet-lov'd sire would make Confusion worse than death, and shake The pillars of domestic peace.
Ah dear, but come thou back to me: Whatever change the years have wrought, I find not yet one lonely thought That cries against my wish for thee.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 91

xci.
I shall not see thee. Dare I say No spirit ever brake the band That stays him from the native land, Where first he walk'd when claspt in clay?
No visual shade of some one lost, But he, the Spirit himself, may come Where all the nerve of sense is numb; Spirit to Spirit, Ghost to Ghost.
O, therefore from thy sightless range With gods in unconjectured bliss, O, from the distance of the abyss Of tenfold-complicated change,
Descend, and touch, and enter; hear The wish too strong for words to name; That in this blindness of the frame My Ghost may feel that thine is near.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 86

lxxxvi.
Wild bird, whose warble, liquid sweet, Rings Eden through the budded quicks, O tell me where the senses mix, O tell me where the passions meet,
Whence radiate: fierce extremes employ Thy spirits in the dusking leaf, And in the midmost heart of grief Thy passion clasps a secret joy:
And I—my harp would prelude woe— I cannot all command the strings; The glory of the sum of things Will flash along the chords and go.
# In Memoriam (Tennyson)/Canto 84

lxxxiv.
Sweet after showers, ambrosial air, That rollest from the gorgeous gloom Of evening over brake and bloom And meadow, slowly breathing bare
The round of space, and rapt below Thro' all the dewy-tassell'd wood, And shadowing down the horned flood In ripples, fan my brows and blow
The fever from my cheek, and sigh The full new life that feeds thy breath Throughout my frame, till Doubt and Death. Ill brethren, let the fancy fly
From belt to belt of crimson seas On leagues of odour streaming far, To where in yonder orient star A hundred spirits whisper 'Peace.'
# International Postal Supply Company of New York v. Bruce

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 601
International Postal Supply Company of New York v. Bruce
Argued: April 13, 14, 1904. --- Decided: May 31, 1904
This case came before the court on the following certificate for instructions:
'The complainant, as the owner of letters patent of the United States for new and useful improvements in stamp canceling and postmarking machines, brought a bill in equity against the defendant, who is postmaster of the United States postoffice at Syracuse, New York, complaining of the use in said postoffice of two machines which infringe the complainant's letters patent, and praying for an injunction against the further use of said machines. The defendant never personally used any stamp canceling and postmarking machines, but the use of said two machines in said postoffice at Syracuse is by some of defendant's subordinates, who are employees of the United States government, such use being in the service of the United States.
'The machines so used were hired by the United States Postoffice Department for a term, which is, as yet, unexpired, from the manufacturer and owner of said machines, at an agreed rental, which is payable on the order of the Postoffice Department, by whose orders said machines were placed in the Syracuse postoffice, and were and are now used there.
'And the said United States circuit court of appeals for the second circuit further certifies that, to the end that it may properly decide the questions in such cause, and presented in the assignments of error therein filed, it requires the instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the following question, to wit:
'Upon the foregoing facts, has the United States circuit court the power to grant an injunction against the defendant, restraining the use of the machines?' Messrs. Louis Marshall and George W. Hey for the
International Postal Supply Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 602-604 intentionally omitted]
Mr. William K. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for bruce.
Statement by Mr. Justice Holmes: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
# International Railway Company v. Anderson County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 424
International Railway Company v. Anderson County
Argued: March 25 and 26, 1918. --- Decided: April 15, 1918
[Syllabus from pages 424-425 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. H. M. Garwood and Samuel B. Dabney, all of Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. F. D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., T. B. Greenwood, of Austin, Tex., and A. G. Greenwood and W. C. Campbell, both of Palestine, Tex., for defendants in error.
[Arguments of Council on pages 425-428 intentionally omitted.]
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
# International Railway Company v. Davidson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 506
International Railway Company v. Davidson
Argued: Jan. 3, 4, 1922. --- Decided: Jan 30, 1922
Mr. Basil Robillard, of Niagara Falls, N. Y., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 507-508 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger, for respondent.
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
# Irvin v. Dowd

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Irvin v. Dowd."
* 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.
* Irvin v. Dowd (359 U.S. 394)
* Irvin v. Dowd (366 U.S. 717)
# Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States

United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 43
Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States
Argued: March 3 and 4, 1926. --- Decided: April 12, 1926
Messrs. Christie Benet, of Columbia, S.C.., and Challen B. Ellis and Don F. Reed, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Paul Shipman Andrews, of Syracuse, N. Y., and Arthur M. Loeb and Harold Horvitz, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Justice STONE 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
# Harty v. Municipality of Victoria

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 12
Harty v. Municipality of Victoria
Argued: October 30, 1912. --- Decided: November 11, 1912
Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert and Harry W. Van Dyke for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Mr. Felix Frankfurter for appellee and 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
# Hartzel v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Reed

## Separate Opinion

    Roberts
United States Supreme Court
322 U.S. 680
HARTZEL v. UNITED STATES.
No. 531. Argued: April 25, 1944. --- Decided: June 12, 1944.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
Mr. Ode L. Rankin, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles Fahy, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY announced the conclusion and judgment 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
# Hartshorn v. Day

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 211
Hartshorn v. Day

## 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