OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Harich v. Florida

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
499 U.S. 985
Harich v. Florida
No. 90-7789
Case below, 437 So.2d 1082; 542 So.2d 980; 573 So.2d 303.
April 23, 1991. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida is denied.
Justice MARSHALL 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
# Harich v. Florida/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

## 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
# Harebell

"Grant him," I said, "a well-earned name,"
* Edmund Clarence Stedman (1897), "Harebell" in Poems, now first collected.
* Edmund Clarence Stedman (1908), "Harebell" in The poems of Edmund Clarence Stedman.
# Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 206
Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp.
Argued: March 21, 1963. --- Decided: May 13, 1963
See 374 U.S. 858, 83 S.Ct. 1863.
Harvey B. Nachman, San Juan, P.R., for petitioner.
Antonio M. Bird, San Juan, P.R., for respondent.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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
# Gutknecht v. United States/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Harlan Stewart
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 295
Gutknecht v. United States
Argued: Nov. 20, 1969. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1970
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion with the following observations. First, as I see it, nothing in the Court's opinion prevents a selective service board, under the present statute and existing regulations, from classifying as I-A a registrant who fails to provide his board with information essential to the determination of whether he qualifies for a requested exemption or deferment. Section 1622.10 of 32 CFR provides that: 'In Class I-A shall be placed every registrant who has failed to establish to the satisfaction of the local board, subject to appeal hereinafter provided, that he is eligible for classification in another class.' I assume, of course, that under this regulation a board has no authority to keep a registrant classified I-A once it has information that justifies some lower classification.
Second, I think it entirely possible that consistently with our opinion today the President might promulgate new regulations, restricted in application to cases in which a registrant fails to comply with a duty essential to the classification process itself, that provide for accelerated induction under the existing statute. However, in order to avoid those punitive features now found to be unauthorized under existing legislation, any new regulations would have to give to a registrant being subjected to accelerated induction the right (like a person held in civil contempt) to avoid any sanction by future compliance. In other words, while existing legislation does not authorize the use of accelerated induction to punish past transgressions, it may well authorize acceleration to encourage a registrant to bring himself into compliance with rules essential to the operation of the classification process.

## 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
# Guy

Mortal mixed of middle clay
* Guy in Poems (1847)
* Guy in Poems (Household Edition, 1904)
# Gutknecht v. United States

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Harlan
    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 295
Gutknecht v. United States
Argued: Nov. 20, 1969. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1970
Michael E. Tigar, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Harper's Weekly/Our Export Trade

From Harper's Weekly, January 21, 1888, p. 39.
OUR EXPORT TRADE.
Another and admirable method of developing and aiding American industry and enterprise is contemplated by the United States Export Almanac Publishing Company, of which Mr. Carl Schurz is President, and which has the countenance of the State Department, and promises to be of the utmost service in the most legitimate manner. The purpose is to publish one or more volumes of short essays on the products of our firms, our mines, and our manufacturing industries, with the advertisements, in English, Spanish, German, and French, of export houses which wish to make themselves known abroad. Some twenty thousand copies of the work will be placed at the disposal of the State Department, which will assist in its distribution through our consular agencies.
The government, of course, will have no pecuniary responsibility or interest in the enterprise, and the essays upon the various branches of American production will be general, and not in the interest of any firm or business organization. The enterprise is designed to collect material for the improvement of our export trade, to show what American producers can furnish for the markets of the world, to encourage American competition with foreign markets, and to call the attention of foreign capital to the opportunities of sound and profitable business with this country.
This is obviously a national and patriotic object, for which the adherents of every view of political economy can co-operate, and in fact the essays will be contributed by protectionists and revenue reformers of every degree. The work will afford a comprehensive picture of American productiveness, like similar works issued in Germany, Austria, and Italy, to the acknowledged benefit of the export trade of those countries; and our own export trade, which is capable of much greater development, cannot fail to be greatly benefited by the successful execution of the scheme.
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
# Hall v. Beals

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 45
Hall v. Beals
Argued: Oct. 14, 1969. ---
Action to enjoin enforcement and operation of Colorado laws imposing residency requirements for voting in presidential election. The Three-Judge District Court, 292 F.Supp. 610, dismissed the complaint and direct appeal was taken. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who were precluded from voting in 1968 presidential election by Colorado statutes imposing six-month residency requirement but who could have voted in 1968 election under statute as amended subsequent to the election were no longer part of class of disenfranchised voters and could not represent class, and action to enjoin enforcement of statute would be dismissed as moot.
Judgment of District Court vacated and case remanded with directions.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall dissented.
Richard Hall, for appellants, pro se.
Bernard R. Baker, Colorado Springs, 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
# Hall v. First National Bank of Bridgeport

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
193 U.S. 676
Hall v. First National Bank of Bridgeport

## 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
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/"No Thank You, John"

"NO THANK YOU, JOHN."
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/A Better Resurrection

A BETTER RESURRECTION.
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)

First published in 1862, this transcription is of the first edition. The title page and frontispiece are by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, the poet's brother. one or more chapters are available in a spoken word format.
GOBLIN MARKET
AND
OTHER POEMS.
BY
CHRISTINA ROSSETTI.
WITH TWO DESIGNS BY D. G. ROSSETTI.
Cambridge: MACMILLAN AND CO. AND 23, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN. London
1862.
LONDON: BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.
TO
MY MOTHER,
IN ALL REVERENCE AND LOVE,
I INSCRIBE THIS BOOK.
CONTENTS
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
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/"A Bruised Reed Shall He Not Break"

"A BRUISED REED SHALL HE NOT BREAK."
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/"The Love of Christ which Passeth Knowledge"

DEVOTIONAL PIECES.
"THE LOVE OF CHRIST WHICH PASSETH KNOWLEDGE."
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/A Birthday

A BIRTHDAY.
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/"Consider the Lilies of the Field"

"CONSIDER THE LILIES OF THE FIELD."
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/A Pause of Thought

A PAUSE OF THOUGHT.
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/A Peal of Bells

A PEAL OF BELLS.
# Goblin Market and Other Poems (1862)/A Summer Wish

A SUMMER WISH.
# Gold Leaves

Lo! I am come to autumn,  When all the leaves are gold; Grey hairs and golden leaves cry out  The year and I are old.
In youth I sought the prince of men,  Captain in cosmic wars, Our Titan, even the weeds would show  Defiant, to the stars.
But now a great thing in the street  Seems any human nod, Where shift in strange democracy  The million masks of God.
In youth I sought the golden flower  Hidden in wood or wold, But I am come to autumn,  When all the leaves are gold.
# Gold and Iron

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1918. The collection of novellas was reprinted twice; then the volume apparently went out of print, and each novella was published separately in 1922. For those who are interested, a contemporaneous review may be found in the Talk page.
Gold and Iron
BOOKS BY JOSEPH HERGESHEIMER
GOLD AND IRON THE THREE BLACK PENNYS MOUNTAIN BLOOD THE LAY ANTHONY
GOLD AND IRON
By
JOSEPH HERGESHEIMER
NEW YORK ALFRED • A • KNOPF
MCMXVIII
COPYRIGHT, 1918, BY ALFRED A. KNOPF Published, April, 1918
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CONTENTS
* Page
* Wild Oranges 11
* Tubal Cain 111
* The Dark Fleece 227
* advertisement
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1954, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 69 years or less. 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
# Helvering v. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 179
Helvering v. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Company
Argued: Jan. 15, 1942. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1942
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. J.A. O'Callaghan, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Helvering v. American Chicle Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 426
Helvering v. American Chicle Company
Argued: Feb. 6, 1934. --- Decided: March 5, 1934
The Attorney General andMr. Erwin N. Griswold, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 427-428 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Wm. C. Breed, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Helvering v. American Dental Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 322
Helvering v. American Dental Company
Argued: Jan. 5, 6, 1943. --- Decided: March 1, 1943
Mr. Samuel H. Levy, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John E. Hughes, of Washington, D.C., 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
# Helvering v. Bashford

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 454
Helvering v. Bashford
Argued: Dec. 15, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Walter G. Moyle, of Washington, D.C., 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
# Helvering v. Bankline Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 362
Helvering v. Bankline Oil Company Bankline Oil Company
Argued: Feb. 9, 1938. --- Decided: March 7, 1938
[Syllabus from pages 362-364 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Mr. Martin J. Weil, of Los Angeles, Cal., for Bankline Oil Co.
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
# Helvering v. O'Donnell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 370
Helvering v. O'Donnell
Argued: Feb. 9, 10, 1938. --- Decided: March 7, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. A. Calder Mackay, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
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
# Helvering v. New York Trust Company New York Trust Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
292 U.S. 455
Helvering v. New York Trust Company New York Trust Company
Argued: May 8, 9, 1934. --- Decided: May 28, 1934
[Syllabus from pages 455-456 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Erwin N. Griswold, of Washington, D.C., for Guy T. Helvering.
[Argument of counselfrom pages 456-460 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Chauncey Newlin and J. Du Pratt White, both of New York City, for New York Trust Co.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Helvering v. Northern Coal Co./Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
In these cases, the judgments were severally affirmed on October 23, 1933, by an equally divided Court. 290 U.S. 591, 54 S.Ct. 94, 78 L.Ed. 521. Petitions for rehearing in Nos. 18, 19, and 21 were denied on November 20, 1933. The mandates of the Court were severally issued in the four cases on November 29, 1933. The present petitions for rehearing were filed on May 21, 1934.
Section 1005(a)(4) of the Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 110, 111, U.S.C., tit. 26, § 1228(a)(4) (26 USCA § 1228(a)(4), with respect to decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals, provides:
'Sec. 1005. (a) The decision of the board shall become final * * *
'(4) Upon the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court, if such court directs that the decision of the board be affirmed or the petition for review dismissed.'
In view of the authoritative and explicit requirement of the statute and of its application to these cases, the petitions for rehearing are severally 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
# Helvering v. Northern Coal Co.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 191
Helvering v. Northern Coal Co.
No. Nos 18-21 Argued: Oct. 22, 1934. ---
The Attorney General, Mr. Justin Miller, of Washington, D.C. (Messrs. J. Crawford Biggs, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., and Erwin N. Griswold, of Cambridge, Mass., on the brief), for petitioner.
Messrs. Paul F. Myers, Edmund B. Quiggle, and Robert P. Smith, all of Washington, D.C., W. W. Montgomery, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., and Douglas Swift, of New York City, for respondents.
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
# Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 46
Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills
Argued: Oct. 23, 1940. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1940
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Richard H. Demuth, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Walser S. Greathouse, of Seattle, 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
# Helvering v. Newport Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 485
Helvering v. Newport Company
Argued: Feb. 15, 16, 1934. --- Decided: March 5, 1934
The Attorney General and Mr. Erwin N. Griswold, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles F. Fawsett, of Milwaukee, Wis., for respondent.
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
# Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Harlan
    Burger
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 50
Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City
Argued: Nov. 10, 1969. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1970
Irving Achtenberg, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
William J. Burrell, Kansas City, Mo., and Louis C. DeFeo, Jr., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.
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
# Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City/Dissent Burger

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Harlan Burger
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 50
Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City
Argued: Nov. 10, 1969. --- Decided: Feb 25, 1970
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, dissenting.
I concur fully in the opinion of Mr. Justice HARLAN. I add this comment to emphasize the subjective quality of a doctrine of constitutional law that has as its primary standard 'a general rule, (that) whenever a state or local government decides to select persons by popular election * * *,' the Constitution commands that each qualified voter must be given a vote which is equally weighted with the votes cast by all other electors.
The failue to provide guidelines for determining when the Court's 'general rule' is to be applied is exacerbated when the Court implies that the stringent standards of 'mathematical exactitude' that are controlling in apportionment of federal congressional districts need not be applied to smaller specialized districts such as the junior college district in this case. This gives added relevance to Mr. Justice HARLAN'S observation that '(t)he need for more flexibility becomes greater as we proceed down the spectrum from the state legislature to the single-purpose local entity.' Ante, at 67. Yet the Court has given amost no indication of which nonpopulation interests may or may not legitimately be considered by a legislature in devising a constitutional apportionment scheme for a local, specialized unit of government.
Ultimately, only this Court can finally apply these 'general rules' but in the interim all other judges must speculate as best they can when and how to apply them. With all deference I suggest the Court's opinion today fails to give any meaningful guidelines.

## 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
# Hadji Murad/list

Aoul A tartar village.
Bar Have.
Beshmet A Tartar undergarment with sleeves.
Burka A long round felt cape.
Dzhigit The same as a brave among American Indians, but the word is inseparably connected with the idea of skilful horsemanship.
Gazavdt A holy war against the infidels.
Imam The leader in the holy war, uniting in himself supreme spiritual and temporal power.
Khansha The wife of a khan.
Kizyak A fuel made of straw and manure.
Kunak A sworn friend, an adopted brother.
Murid A disciple or follower: "One who desires" to find the way in Muridism.
Muridism Almost identical with Sufism.
Murshed "One who shows" the way in Muridism.
Naib A Tartar lieutenant or governor.
Pilau An oriental dish prepared with rice and mutton or chicken.
Saklya A Caucasian house, clay-plastered and often built of earth.
Shariat
The written Mohammedan law.
Tarikat "The Path" leading to the higher life.
Yok No, not.