OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# In re Little

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Burger
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 553
In re Little
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Superior Court Division, General Court of Justice, County of Forsyth, North Carolina
No. 71-244
Petitioner defended himself at his criminal trial when his motion for continuance, by reason of another trial engagement of his retained counsel, was denied. The court adjudged petitioner in contempt for stating in summation after the close of evidence that the court was biased and had prejudged his case, and that petitioner was a political prisoner.
Held: Petitioner's statements did not constitute criminal contempt, as they were not uttered in a boisterous tone, did not actually disrupt the court proceeding, or constitute an imminent threat to the administration of justice. Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131.
Certiorari granted; reversed.
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
# In re Latimer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 82
In re Latimer
The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

## 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 re Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 578
In re Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York
[Statement of Case from pages 578-580 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Felix H. Levy and Benjamin N. Cordozo for petitioner.
The Attorney General in opposition.
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
# In re Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 578
In re Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York
Leave to file petition denied.
1. One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom. Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530, 13 L. ed. 245; Indiana Southern R. Co. v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. 109 U.S. 168, 27 L. ed. 895, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108; Ex parte Cockcroft, 104 U.S. 578, 26 L. ed. 856.
2. The action of the court below in refusing to permit the movers to become parties to the record is not susceptible of being reviewed by this court on appeal, or indirectly, under the circumstances here disclosed, by the writ of mandamus. Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 15, 24 L. ed. 49; and see Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 177 U.S. 311, 44 L. ed. 782, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 636.
3. The merely general nature and character of the interest which the movers allege they have in the papers here filed is not, in any event, of such a character as to authorize them in this proceeding to assail the action of the court below. This is more obvious in this case since the act of the court which is assailed has been accepted by those who are parties to the record. United States v. Union P. R. Co. 105 U.S. 263, 26 L. ed. 1021; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U.S. 500, 33 L. ed. 998, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598.

## 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
# Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 324
Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation
Argued: March 23, 1964. --- Decided: June 1, 1964
Irving Galt, New York City, for appellants.
Charles H. Tuttle, New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# Hospitals, Medical Science, and Public Health/Front matter

Manchester University Lectures, No. 9
Hospitals, Medical Science, and Public Health
SHERRATT & HUGHES Publishers to the Victoria University of Manchester Manchester: 34 Cross Street London: 33, Soho Square, W.C.
# Hot Spring Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hot Spring Act."
* 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.
* Hot Spring Act (Taiwan, Republic of China)
* Hot Spring Act (Japan) (w:ja:温泉法)
* Hot Spring Act (Republic of Korea)
# Hot Springs Cases Rector v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 698
Hot Springs Cases Rector v. United States
APPEALS from the Court of Claims.
These cases were argued by— Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. Albert Pike for Rector.
Mr. Frederick P. Stanton for Hale.
Mr. E. W. Munford for Gaines et al.
Mr. John A. Grow for Russell.
Mr. Attorney-General Pierrepont for the United States.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Hot Cross Buns

"Hot Cross Buns was an English street cry, later perpetuated as a nursery rhyme and an aid in musical education. It refers to the spiced English confection known as a hot cross bun, which is associated with the end of Lent and is eaten on Good Friday in various countries. The song has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 13029." Warning: template has been deprecated.
* "Hot cross Buns!" in Nursery Rhymes (1860)
* "Hot-cross buns!" in The Nursery Rhymes of Mother Goose by Arthur Rackham (St. Nicholas, 1914)
* "Hot-Cross Buns" in The Real Mother Goose by Blanche Fisher Wright (1916)
# Inland Transit/Moss2

See also earlier evidence by Moss
Mr. J. Moss, Director of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (in continuation).
40. Did you know the late Mr. Heywood of Manchester?
Very well.
41. Did he oppose the Manchester and Liverpool Railroad? (the Line first proposed.)
Yes.
42. Did he afterwards complain of its not passing through his land?
He complained very much of it.
43. Did you make any alteration afterwards, to accommodate him?
No, we did not.
44. Lord Derby and Lord Sefton objected very much to that (line)?
Very strongly.
45. Has there not been a scheme for another Railroad?
Yes.
​ 46. Was that to pass through Lords Derby and Sefton's land?
Yes; they both consented. They threw us back the first year, and we lost such a line as we could never get again; since which they consented to another line going through their property.
47. Do you know Bold Hall?
Very well.
48. Is it a fine house?
Yes, it is.
49. Is that near to the Liverpool and Manchester?
Yes; he complained very much that we made a complete bend, to avoid his property.
50. Did he afterwards wish you to cut off the bend, and go nearer by a straight line?
We arranged with him, and he said he had no objection to the alteration of the line.
51. You agreed to go nearer his premises?
Much nearer to his house.
# Inland Transit/Moss

See also further evidence by Moss
Mr. John Moss, Director of the London and Manchester Railway.—p. 91.
1. Do you live at Liverpool?
I do.
2. You are well acquainted with Liverpool, Manchester, and the county of Lancaster?
Very well.
9. Tell us whether, in your judgment, it would be of the greatest possible advantage to Liverpool if the mail arrived there on the morning next after it left London?
Of the greatest possible advantage.
​ 10. You are aware of the rate at which locomotive engines travel?
Yes.
11. Can they easily command twenty miles an hour?
Yes.
12. With certainty and precision?
Yes.
59. Do you go the same rate by night as by day?
Exactly the same.
13. Calculating on a Railroad all the way, what time would the mail leaving London arrive in Liverpool?
In about eleven hours.
14. Is it contemplated to have a Railroad from Birmingham to Liverpool?
It is quite arranged for it.
21. If the mail arrived at Liverpool at seven o'clock in the morning, could they arrive the same evening at Dublin?
Perfectly well.
52. Do you know any thing of the transport of bullion from Manchester to Liverpool; has bullion been sent?
Certainly.
53. In a considerable quantity?
A considerable quantity.
54. Do you know whether that has been found of great advantage to the bankers?
It has been a great service to every one.
# Inland Transit/Purkess Westall

Mr. Richard Purkess Westall.—p. 88.
1. Are you a linen-draper at Birmingham?
I am.
2. Where do you get your silk mercery, haberdashery, and drapery goods from?
The bulk of them from London.
14. If the proposed Railroad was to take place, would that be an advantage to you, and persons concerned in the same trade?
A very decided advantage.
15. Both in point of rapidity and cheapness of conveyance?
In both points.
16. Is expedition in the execution of an order in your trade of great importance?
Of considerable importance.
17. Is it of that importance that you have goods such as you mention conveyed by coach at so heavy a cost as you allude to?
The majority of goods received from the London market we have by coach; in consequence of the necessity to have them delivered at an early period, in consequence of the change of fashion, we prefer paying treble or quadruple to get them by coach.
18. Are you obliged to make frequent journeys for the purpose of purchasing?
Yes; we go twenty-four times a year.
​ 19. Would the expedition of the Railroad save you time in these journeys?
Unquestionably.
20. Would you come more frequently?
We probably should; we should be compelled to come more frequently. The additional expedition would be a motive for keeping a less stock of goods, and would consequently bring us to the market more frequently.
21. You would require less capital by keeping less goods?
Decidedly.
# Inland Transit/Preface

To
The Landowners, Cultivators,
Manufacturers, Merchants, and Bankers
of
Great Britain.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
The march of science and the mind of man have opened new lights in the field of domestic improvements. The construction of Railroads is a new era in our history; and the beneficial effects already produced by all the Railroads established, give sufficient guarantee for their extension.
I venture to submit to your consideration the expanded advantages that would emanate from the establishment of five railroads from the metropolis; viz.—a Northern, Eastern, ​Southern, Western, and Midland. These Railroads would connect the great agricultural, grazing, and manufacturing districts, with a proximity to trade, like a single community.
These Railroads would extend agriculture and manual labour, and send forth the produce of the soil, the loom, and the factory, to the best markets, at a third of the former expence, and by giving cheapness extend consumption, to the benefit of all.
I respectfully lay the following pages before you, pointing out some of the advantages and effects of Railroads and Steam transits, for your perusal and kind indulgence.
I have the honour to be,
My Lords and Gentlemen,
Your devoted and faithful servant,
N. W. Cundy.
London, December, 1833.
# Inland Transit/Rastrich

Mr. John U. Rastrich.—p. 147.
1. You have been a civil engineer for some years?
I have.
2. You have had some experience in the construction of Railroads?
Yes.
5. Have you gone over Mr. Stephenson's estimate?
I have.
6. Have you been over the whole of the line of Railroad estimated by Mr. Stephenson?
I have.
7. Have you taken pains to calculate whether or not the estimate he has made is correct or not?
I consider his estimate a great deal more than what I should have calculated it at.
8. You think the works might be done on the line from Birmingham to London for less expense than he has estimated?
Yes. I do think so.
34. What is the whole amount of your estimate?
The amount of my estimate, independent of contingencies, is 1,875,527l. I have added the remainder to make up 2,500,000l.; that makes the contingencies 374,473l.
35. Then you have added so large a sum to make your estimate come up to Mr. Stephenson's? ​ Yes, certainly.
36. Does that include the purchase of land?
No, it does not; the purchase of land is 250,000l.—the whole together is 2,500,000l.
# Inland Transit/Robinson Palmer

Mr. Henry Robinson Palmer.—p. 156.
1. Are you a civil engineer?
I am.
2. Are you the engineer to the London Dock Company?
I am.
5. Have you carefully examined the proposed line of Railroad from London to Birmingham?
I have.
11. At what sum do you estimate the cost of the work, exclusive of contingencies?
1,893,788l.
14. Do you know at what sum the land is valued?
The land is valued at 250,000l.
15. What would that make your whole estimate?
Mr. Stephenson having estimated the whole cost at 2,500,000l.. I have supposed that that sum would be raised for the purpose of the whole work, and have therefore assumed the difference between my estimate and that sum as an item, which I distinguish as contingencies, which ​ is about 356,000l, being a larger sum than is usually allowed for contingencies on public works.
16. In allowing the sum of 356,000l., do you conceive it would be required?
Certainly not; I think the prices I have put on the work throughout will be such as to be sufficient without the aid of that.
17. Do the contingencies come to nineteen per cent.?
About nineteen per cent, on the cost of the work.
# Instauratio Magna/Dedication (Wood)

TO OUR
MOST SERENE,
AND MIGHTY
PRINCE AND LORD
JAMES
BY THE GRACE OF GOD
King OF GREAT BRITAIN,
France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, etc.
Most serene and mighty King,
Your majesty will, perhaps, accuse me of theft, in that I have stolen from your employments time sufficient for this work. I have no reply, for there can be no restitution of time, unless, perhaps, that which has been withdrawn from your affairs might be set down as devoted to the perpetuating of your name and to the honour of your age, were what I now offer of any value. It is at least new, even in its very nature; but copied from a very ancient pattern, no other than the world itself, and the nature of things, and of the mind. I myself (ingenuously to confess the truth) am wont to value this work rather as the offspring of time than of wit. For the only wonderful circumstance in it is, that the first conception of the matter, and so deep suspicions of prevalent notions should ever have entered into any person's mind; the consequences naturally follow. But, doubtless, there is a chance, (as we call it,) and something as it were accidental in man's thoughts, no less than in his actions and words. I would have this chance, however, (of which I am speaking,) to be so understood, that if there be any merit in what I offer, it should be attributed to the immeasurable mercy and bounty of God, and to the felicity of this your age; to which felicity I have devoted myself whilst living with the sincerest zeal, and I shall, perhaps, before my death have rendered the age a light unto posterity, by kindling this new torch amid the darkness of philosophy. This regeneration and instauration of the sciences is with justice due to the age of a prince surpassing all others in wisdom and learning. There remains for me to but to make one request, worthy of your majesty, and very especially relating to my subject, namely, that, resembling Solomon as you do in most respects, in the gravity of your decisions, the peacefulness of your reign, the expansion of your heart, and, lastly, in the noble variety of books you have composed, you would further imitate the same monarch in procuring the compilation and completion of a Natural and Experimental History, that shall be genuine and rigorous, not that of mere philologues, and serviceable for raising the superstructure of philosophy, such, in short, as I will in its proper place describe: that, at length, after so many ages, philosophy and the sciences may no longer be unsettled and speculative, but fixed on the solid foundation of a varied and well considered experience. I for my part have supplied the instrument, the matter to be worked upon must be sought from things themselves. May the great and good God long preserve your majesty in safety.
Your majesty's
    Most bounden
    and
       devoted,
Francis Bacon,
CHANCELLOR
# Inspiration (Thoreau, "Whate'er we leave to God, God does")

"Whate'er we leave to God, God does"
* "Inspiration" in Poems of Nature (1895)
* "Inspiration" in The Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) Vol. 5
# Instauratio Magna/Notice (Wood)

The First Part of the Instauration,
which comprehends
the Division of the Sciences,
is wanting.
But they can be
partly taken
from the Second Book,
“On the Progress to be made
in Divine and
Human Learning.”
Next followeth the Second Part
of the Instauration,
which exhibits the Art of
interpreting Nature and of making a right Use
of the Understanding; not, however,
imbodied in a regular Treatise,
but only summarily
digested in
Aphorisms.
# Instauratio Magna/Dedication (Spedding)

TO OUR
MOST GRACIOUS
AND MIGHTY
PRINCE AND LORD
JAMES,
BY THE GRACE OF GOD
OF GREAT BRITAIN,
FRANCE, AND IRELAND KING,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, ETC.
Most Gracious and Mighty King,
Your Majesty may perhaps accuse me of larceny, having stolen from your affairs so much time as was required for this work. I know not what to say for myself. For of time there can be no restitution unless it be that what has been abstracted from your business may perhaps go to the memory of your name and the honour of your age; if these things are indeed worth anything. Certainly they are quite new; totally new in their very kind: and yet they are copied from a very ancient model; even the world itself and the nature of things and of the mind. And to say truth, I am wont for my own part to regard this work as a child of time rather than of wit; the only wonder being that the first notion of the thing, and such great suspicions concerning matters long established, should have come into any man’s mind. All the rest follows readily enough. And no doubt there is something of accident (as we call it) and luck as well in what men think as in what they do or say. But for this accident which I speak of, I wish that if there be any good in what I have to offer, it may be ascribed to the infinite mercy and goodness of God, and to the felicity of your Majesty’s times; to which as I have been an honest and affectionate servant in my life, so after my death I may yet perhaps, through the kindling of this new light in the darkness of philosophy, be the means of making this age famous to posterity; and surely to the times of the wisest and most learned of kings belongs of right the regeneration and restoration of the sciences. Lastly, I have a request to make — a request no way unworthy of your Majesty, and which especially concerns the work in hand; namely, that you who resemble Solomon in so many things — in the gravity of your judgments, in the peacefulness of your reign, in the largeness of your heart, in the noble variety of the books which you have composed — would further follow his example in taking order for the collecting and perfecting of a Natural and Experimental history, true and severe (unincumbered with literature and book-learning), such as philosophy may be built upon, — such, in fact, as I shall in its proper place describe: that so at length, after the lapse of so many ages, philosophy and the sciences may no longer float in air, but rest on the solid foundation of experience of every kind, and the same well examined and weighed. I have provided the machine, but the stuff must be gathered from the facts of nature. May God Almighty long preserve your Majesty!
Your Majesty's
    Most bounden
    and
       devoted Servant,
FRANCIS BACON,
Chancellor.
# Instauratio Magna/Notice (Spedding)

THE FIRST PART OF THE INSTAURATION,
WHICH COMPRISES THE
DIVISIONS OF THE SCIENCES,
IS WANTING.
But some account of them
will be found
in the Second Book of the
“Proficience and Advancement
of Learning,
Divine and Human.”
Next comes
THE
SECOND PART OF THE INSTAURATION,
WHICH EXHIBITS
THE ART ITSELF OF INTERPRETING NATURE,
AND OF THE TRUER EXERCISE OF THE INTELLECT;
Not however in a regular Treatise,
but only a Summary
digested into Aphorisms.
# International Business Machines Corporation v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 131
International Business Machines Corporation v. United States
Argued: April 8, 1936. --- Decided: April 27, 1936
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Messrs. Martin A. Schenck and Drury W. Cooper, both of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. John Dickinson, Asst. Atty. 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
# International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen Helpers Union Local 309 v. Hanke Automobile Drivers & Demonstrators Local Union No 882/Concurrence Clark

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Clark
* Dissenting Opinion Minton
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 470
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen Helpers Union Local 309 v. Hanke Automobile Drivers & Demonstrators Local Union No 882
Argued: Feb. 9-10, 1950. --- Decided: May 8, 1950
Mr. Justice CLARK concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice BLACK dissents for substantially the reasons given in his dissent in Carpenters & Joiners Union of America, Local No. 213, v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 729-732, 62 S.Ct. 807, 810-812, 86 L.Ed. 1143.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Mr. Justice MINTON, with whom Mr. Justice REED joins, 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
# International Code Council v. UpCodes

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "International Code Council v. UpCodes."
* related portals: UpCodes.
* 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.
* 17-cv-6261 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020), opinion by Judge Victor Marrero
** Primary memorandum opinion in the original (copyright) suit, denying both parties’ respective cross-motions for summary judgment.
* 20-cv-4316 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2021), opinion by Judge Victor Marrero
** Opinion in the second (unfair competition) suit, granting UpCodes’ purported motion to dismiss.
* 21-826 (2d Cir. July 29, 2022), opinion by Senior Judge Robert Sack
** Opinion in case heard upon appeal of the 2021 decision; overturns most of said decision.