OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Schulz v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company/Dissent Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 523
Schulz v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Argued: March 27, 28, 1956. --- Decided: April 9, 1956
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, dissenting.
Considerations that I have heretofore spelled out govern me in the conviction that the writ in this case should be dismissed as improvidently granted. McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 23, 75 S.Ct. 6, 9, 99 L.Ed. 20; Carter v. Atlanta & St. A.B. Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 430, 437, 70 S.Ct. 226, 230, 94 L.Ed. 236; Cahill v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 350 U.S. 898, 76 S.Ct. 180; Anderson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 350 U.S. 807, 76 S.Ct. 60; Swafford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 350 U.S. 807, 76 S.Ct. 80; Moore v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 340 U.S. 573, 578, 71 S.Ct. 428, 430, 95 L.Ed. 547; Affolder v. New York, C. & St. L.R. Co., 339 U.S. 96, 101, 70 S.Ct. 509, 511, 94 L.Ed. 683. See Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, 206 et seq.

## 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
# Schumacher v. Cornell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 549
Schumacher v. Cornell
1. Letters-patent No. 133,536, granted Dec. 3, 1872, to William Johnson, for an improvement in wrenches, do not infringe reissued letters-patent No. 5026, granted Aug. 6, 1872, to John Lacey and George B. Cornell, for an improvement in wrenches for extracting bung-bushes.
2. The doctrine of mechanical equivalents has no application to this case.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
This is a suit by George B. Cornell, against Eilert Schumacher and William Johnson, for an injunction, and for damages claimed for the alleged infringement by them of reissued letters-patent No. 5026, granted Aug. 6, 1872, to John Lacey and George B. Cornell, for an improvement in wrenches for extracting bung-bushes; said letters being a reissue of original letters No. 118,617, dated Aug. 29, 1872.
The defendants justified under letters-patent No. 133,536, issued to Johnson Dec. 3, 1872, for an improvement in wrenches.
The specification and claim of both patents are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
The drawing therein referred to are as follows:--
The court below decreed in favor of the complainant, and awarded him an injunction, whereupon the defendants appealed to this court.
There was no infringement. Curtis, Patents, sect. 249; Prouty v. Ruggles, 1 Story, 568; s. c. 16 Pet. 336; Winans v. Schenectady & Troy Railroad Co., 2 Blatchf. 279; Bell v. Daniels, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 372; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U.S. 288; Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1; Gould v. Rees, 15 id. 187; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427.
There is no room in this case to invoke the doctrine of mechanical equivalents. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; Gould v. Rees, supra; Gill v. Wells, supra.
Mr. L. L. Bond, contra, cited Curtis, Patents, sect. 332, 453-458; Blanchard v. Biers, 2 Blatchf. 418; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U.S. 171; Root v. Ball, 4 McLean, 177; Alden v. Dewey, 1 Story, 336; Haworth v. Hardcastle, Web. Pat. Cas. 484; Ransom v. Mayor, &c., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252; Whipple v. Middlesex Co., 4 id. 41; Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330.
Mr. William P. Lynde for the appellants.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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
# Summa Theologiae/Third Part/Prologue
## PROLOGUE

Forasmuch as Our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, by saving His people from their sins (Matt. i. 21), as the angel announced, showed unto us in His own Person the way of truth, whereby we may attain to the bliss of eternal life by resurrection, it is necessary, in order to complete the work of theology, that after considering the last end of human life and virtues and vices, there should follow the consideration of the Saviour of all, and of the benefits bestowed by Him on the human race.
Concerning which we must consider — (1) the Saviour Himself ; (2) the sacraments by which we attain to our salvation ; (3) the end of immortal life to which we attain by the resurrection.
Concerning the first, a double consideration occurs — the first, about the mystery of the Incarnation itself, whereby God was made man for our salvation ; the second, about such things as were done and suffered by our Saviour — i.e., God incarnate.
# Sinclair Refining Company v. Atkinson

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 195
Sinclair Refining Company v. Atkinson
Argued: April 18, 1962. --- Decided: June 18, 1962
George B. Christensen, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Gilbert A. Cornfield, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
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
# Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me

* related portals: Song lyrics.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Song written in 1922, and popularized by The Happiness Boys in 1927.
* Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me, original lyrics (1922)
* Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me, version performed by The Happiness Boys (1927)
# Sinclair Carroll Company v. Interchemical Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 327
Sinclair Carroll Company v. Interchemical Corporation
Argued: April 5, 1945. --- Decided: May 21, 1945
Mr. William D. Mitchell, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Robert W. Byerly, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON divered 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
# Since I am sworn to live my life

* "Since I am sworn to live my life" in Poems, by Robert Louis Stevenson, hitherto unpublished (1921)
* "Since I am sworn to live my life" in The Works of Robert Louis Stevenson (Vailima ed.) Volume 8 (1922)
# Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me (Rose)

Lyrics written in 1922; latter performed by The Happiness Boys in 1927.
I was sad and I was blue But now I'm just as good as you Since Hen-ry Ford a-pol-ogized to me I've thrown a-way my lit-tie Che-vro-let And bought my-self a Ford Cou-pe I told the Sup-'rin-tendent that The Dearborn In-de-pen-dent Does-n't have to hang up where it used to be I'm glad he changed his point of view And I even like Edsel too, Since Hen-ry Ford a-pol-o-gized to me
My mother says she'll feed him if he calls 'Ge-fil-re-fish' and Mat-zah balls And if he runs for President I would-n't charge a sin-gle cent I'll cast my hal-lot ab-so-lute-ly free Since Hen-ry Ford a-pol-o-gized to me.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me (The Happiness Boys)

Performed in 1927 by The Happiness Boys. The lyrics were originally written in 1922 by Billy Rose.
Oyoy gevalt gevalt Vuts de mattuh, Abram? Did you see the Yiddishe Joinal this morning Dovid? No, vut did it say? Well I don't mind telling you that I'm so happy I could cry You're looking simply great, why don't you celebrate? I bought maynself a quart of hooch, a collar mit a tie Well if I see you making voopie, what's your alibi?
I was sad and I was blue but now I'm just as good as you Since Henry Ford apologized to me That's why you threw away your little Chevrolet And bought yourself a Ford cou-pay.
I told the superintendent that the Dearborn Independent doesn't have to hang up where it used to be You're happy now because he settled half the case I'm sorry I cut off my nose to spite mayn race Are you glad he changed his point of view? Yes, I like even Edsel too Since Henry Ford apologized to me
Oy yoy yeah yeah yeah
Ven you hoid he would be in town did you write him in adventz? Sure I asked him please to drop around to see mayn shop Did you say you were a tailor? Sure! I offered him a chentz To get a suit of clothes at cost Including hextra pentz
Soitenly
To even up for what he did I bought a tractor for mayn kid Since Henry Ford apologized to me Di mama said she'd feed him if he calls Gefilte fish and matzo balls And even if he runs for president I wouldn't charge a single cent I'll cast my ballot absolutely free… maybe He's got an aviator for his new machine Instead of Cholly Lindboigz* he's got Charles Levine You've got a cold now does it hoit? Yeah, but I don't suffer in Detroit Since Henry Ford apologized to me
I put the family jewels in hock and bought myself a share of stock Since Henry Ford apologized to me I hear you had a baby yesterday and named it Henry right away For what I thought about that guy my wife was telling me that I Should send him also my apology You got some whiskers and tied it on your Ford somehow And everybody thinks I drive a Lincoln now I saw the brand new cars he makes Instead of Lizzies they'll be Jakes
Since Henry Ford apologized to me
# Since all the Riches of this World

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
From Notebook c.1808-1811 p.73. See also: Satiric verses and epigrams.

#### Edited text:

cxxv
Since all the Riches of this World
May be gifts from the Devil & Earthly Kings,
I should suspect that I worship'd the Devil
If I thank'd my God for worldly things.
MS. Book, p. 73 (reversed) in pencil. All add. follow DGR in printing as first stanza of xxx ; DGR, WMR and EY with title ' Riches,' WBY with
title ' The Two Kinds of Riches.'
4 my God] WBY omits my.
________________________________________

#### The original text:

Since all the Riches of this World
May be gifts from the Devil & Earthly Kings
I should suspect that I worshipd the Devil
If I thankd my God for Worldly things
________________________________________

## Notes

* ↑ The poetical works of William Blake; a new and verbatim text from the manuscript engraved and letterpress originals; With variorum readings and bibliographical notes and prefaces, edited by Sampson, John, Clarendon Press Oxford 1905, c. 236.
* ↑ "The Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake", ed. by David V. Erdman, Anchor Books, 1988, p. 516.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Steinbeck v. Gerosa/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 39
Steinbeck v. Gerosa
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice BLACK is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

## 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
# Steiner v. Fell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
April Term, 1776.
| Before | Chew, Chief Justice. |
| | Lawrence, Justice. |
Steiner versus Fell and others.
Plaintiff brought an action of debt on an arbitration Bond in Bucks County, Common Pleas. Defendant pleaded null award. Plaintiff replied, and set forth an award. In September Term, 1775, Plaintiff got a rule for rejoinder in six weeks, or judgment. Before the six weeks expired, defendant’s attorney gave him a rejoinder, and, at the same time, shewed him a Habeas Corpus, by which he intended to remove the cause to the next Supreme Court. Plaintiff, chusing that the proceedings should go up above, as they were below, took out a Certiorari, and, going into court the first day of the term, got it allowed—The next day the defendant presented the Habeas Corpus, to which plaintiff’s attorney objected, for that the record was removed by the Certiorari—The Court below agreed to send up both writs, and let the Supreme Court receive the record on which they pleased.
Now it came on to be argued, and the plaintiff’s council contended, that the record should be received only on the Certiorari; First for that, when the other writ was presented, there was no record before the court, on which the Habeas Corpus could operate, and that the power of the court below was exercised. Secondly, that if that could not be allowed, yet both writs might be returned reddendo singula singulis; the Certiorari might remove the cause, and the Habeas Corpus the body; and there was no inconsistency in so doing.
The defendants council rested it on the advantage taken of him, and on the constant practice of the court with respect to writs of removal.
By the Court. Whenever a writ issuses fairly, if it is first delivered it shall take preference—The proceedings, on a Habeas Corpus are de novo; on a certiorari, the court proceed on the state returned. Therefore, both writs cannot issue in the same cause; for the court cannot proceed de novo and on the old record too; which upon the idea of returning both writ must be done. In this case, the defendant not having affected delay, but proceeded in the ​ usual course, having taken out the first writ, and delivered it as soon as was usual, his writ should take preference; and the Court accordingly order the return to be made on the Habeas Corpus.
# Steiner v. P Mitchell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 247
Steiner v. P Mitchell
Argued: Nov. 16, 1955. --- Decided: Jan 30, 1956
Mr. Cecil Sims, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioners.
Bessie Margolin, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 26
Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf
Argued: October 19, and 20, 1915. --- Decided: November 1, 1915
Messrs. James M. Beck, Francis J. Heney, and Eugene S. Ives for appellants and plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 26-28 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank H. Hereford, Edwin A. Meserve, Selim M. Franklin, and Edwin F. Jones for appellees and defendants 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
# Steings v. Franklin County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 15
Steings v. Franklin County
MOTION by Mr. F. A. Dick (Messrs. Crews and Letcher opposing) to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri; taken on an assumption that the case came within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, pp. 5, 6.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD 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
# Steinbeck v. Gerosa

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 39
Steinbeck v. Gerosa
Mr. Irwin Karp, for appellant.
Messrs. Peter Campbell Brown and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees.
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
# Sikhim and Bhutan/Appendix 4

APPENDIX IV
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ART SPECIMENS ILLUSTRATED IN CHAPTER XXIII
Plate I
1. Pierced copper-gilt ornaments used with a rice puja (Bhutan).
2. Copper teapot, with silver mounts (Bhutan).
3. Brass purpa or demon dagger used at services in Northern Buddhist monasteries (Bhutan).
4 and 9. Wood, silver, and silver-gilt gyeling (trumpets) used in temples (Bhutan).
5. Dagger with open-work, pierced, and embossed silver and silver-gilt sheath, set with turquoise (Bhutan).
6. Embossed silver and silver-gilt pan-box, set with coral and turquoise (Bhutan).
7. Temple bell, cast in Bhutan.
8. Sword with silver and silver-gilt scabbard, and silver-mounted leather belt with silk tassels (Bhutan).
10. Wine-flask made from a mythun horn mounted in copper (Bhutan).
11. Brass dorji, or thunderbolt, used by lamas at services (Tibet).
Plate II
1, 3, 5, 13. Ginger-jars, plate, and bottle brought from Lhasa (China).
2 and 4. Brass cymbals (Tibet).
6. Steel helmet (Bhutan).
7 and 11. Copper embossed ladles used to pour oil on bodies during cremation (Tibet).
8. Small skull drum (Tibet).
9. Silver-gilt hat ornament, set with turquoise and carbuncle (Shigatse, Tibet).
10. Lacquer cymbal-box, with copper binding, and copper and iron fittings (China).
12 and 15. Old cloisonné bowls (China).
14. Carved wooden frame for a small Buddha (Tibet).
Plate III
1 and 7. Pair of iron water-bottles, inlaid with silver (Tibet).
2. Small brass teapot (Tibet).
3. Copper-gilt Urn of Life used for puja (Tibet).
4. Teapot (Sikhim).
5 and 15. Copper-gilt images of Buddha (Tibet).
6. Brass box for jade teacup (Tibet).
8. Hand-bell (Tibet).
9. Copper dorji, or thunderbolt (Tibet).
10 and 21. Bell-metal cymbals (Tibet).
11. Carved, gilt, and coloured book-back (Tibet).
12 and 22. Silver altar butter-lamps (Tibet).
13. Enamel box (China).
14, 16, 18, and 20. Part of a set of Tashi Tagye, in copper-gilt, used at puja (Tibet).
17. Temple bell (Tibet).
19. Brass spectacle-case (Tibet).
23. Jade teacup with silver cover and stand (Tibet).
Plate IV
1. Copper-gilt Urn of Life (Bhutan).
2. Long-stemed porcelain teacup in copper-gilt stand (Tibet).
4. Teapot in copper-gilt, with silver mounts set with small turquoise (Tibet).
10. Copper-gilt rice offering-box (Tibet). (Nos. 2, 4, and 10 belonged to the late Regent of Tibet, and were sold on his downfall.)
3. Silver amulet-case (Bhutan).
5. Silver prayer-wheel (Sikhim).
6. Silver bowl used to receive grease off buttered tea (Tibet).
7. Glass bowl (Tibet).
8. Skull rice-bowl, with silver stand and cover (Sikhim).
9. Copper-gilt amulet-case (Tibet).
11. Silver amulet-case (Tibet).
12. Carved and painted wooden table (Sikhim).
# Sihtric

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Sihtric."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Sihtric (d.871)
* Sihtric (d.927)
* Sihtric (fl.962)
* Sihtric (d.1042)
# Signs of the Times

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Signs of the Times."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Signs of the Times, a pamphlet by Baron von Bunsen
* "Signs Of The Times", a poem by Paul Laurence Dunbar
* "Signs of the Times", an article by Rufus W. Weeks for The Masses
* "The Signs of the Times", an essay by John Wesley
# Sutton v. New Jersey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 258
Sutton v. New Jersey
Argued: and submitted April 20, 1917. --- Decided: May 21, 1917
Mr. Frank Bergen for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. John Bentley for defendant in error.
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
# Sutter v. Robinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
119 U.S. 530
Sutter v. Robinson
Ephraim Banning and Thos. A. Banning, for appellants, Sutter and others.
John W. Munday and Edmund Adcock, for appellees, Robinson and another.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Suttle v. Reich Bros Const Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 163
Suttle v. Reich Bros Const Company
Argued: Dec. 18, 1947. --- Decided: March 8, 1948
See 333 U.S. 878, 68 S.Ct. 900.
Messrs. Charles F. Engle, of Natchez, Miss., and John D. Miller, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
Mr. George T. Owen, Jr., of Baton Rouge, La., for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON 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
# Sutton v. Leib

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 402
Sutton v. Leib
Argued: Dec. 3, 1951. --- Decided: March 3, 1952
See 343 U.S. 921, 72 S.Ct. 674.
Messrs. John Alan Appleman, Urbana, Ill., Edward D. Bolton, New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Arthur M. Fitzgerald, Springfield, Ill., for respondent.
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
# Sutton v. English

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 199
Sutton v. English
Argued: April 10, 1917. --- Decided: March 4, 1918
Mr. Allen G. Fisher, of Chadron, Neb., for appellants.
Mr. Cecil H. Smith, of Sherman, Tex., for appellees.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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