OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# South Carolina v. Gathers
## Concurring Opinion

    White

## Dissenting Opinions

    O'Connor
    Scalia
United States Supreme Court
490 U.S. 805
South Carolina v. Gathers
No. 88-305 Argued: March 28, 1989. --- Decided: June 12, 1989
See 492 U.S. 938, 110 S.Ct. 24.
Syllabus
Respondent was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a South Carolina court. The prosecutor's closing argument at the sentencing phase included his reading to the jury at length from a religious tract the victim was carrying and comments on the personal qualities that the prosecutor inferred from the victim's possession of the religious tract and a voter registration card. Finding that the prosecutor's "extensive comments to the jury regarding the victim's character were unnecessary to an understanding of the circumstances of the crime," the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that those comments "conveyed the suggestion [respondent] deserved a death sentence because the victim was a religious man and a registered voter," and, in reliance on Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440, reversed respondent's death sentence a d remanded for a new sentencing proceeding.
Held: "For purposes of imposing the death penalty . . . [the defendant's] punishment must be tailored to his personal responsibility and moral guilt." Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3378, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140. Here, the prosecutor's comments concerned the victim's personal characteristics, and "[a]llowing the jury to rely on [this information] . . . could result in imposing the death sentence because of factors about which the defendant was unaware, and that were irrelevant to the decision to kill." Booth v. Maryland, supra, 482 U.S. at 505, 107 S.Ct. at 2534. The content of the religious tract and the voter registration card could not possibly have been relevant to the "circumstances of the crime." Where there was no evidence that respondent read either the tract or the voter card, the content of the papers the victim was carrying was purely fortuitous and could not provide any information relevant to respondent's moral culpability, notwithstanding that the papers had been admitted in evidence for other purposes. Pp. 810-812.
295 S.C. 476, 369 S.E.2d 140 (1988), affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 812. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and KENNEDY, J., joined, post, p. 812. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 823.
Donald J. Zelenka, Columbia, for petitioner.
Joseph L. Savitz, III, Asst. Appellate Defender, William Isaac Diggs, Columbia, for respondent.
Justice BRENNAN 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
# South Carolina v. Katzenbach

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurrence/Dissent

    Black
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 301
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas deB. KATZENBACH, Attorney General of the United States.
Argued: Jan. 17, 18, 1966. --- Decided: March 7, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 301-305 intentionally omitted]
David W. Robinson, II, and Daniel R. McLeod, Columbia, S.C., for plaintiff.
Atty. Gen. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, defendant, pro se.
R. D. McIlwaine, III, Richmond, Va., for Commonwealth of Virginia, as amicus curiae.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Baton Rouge, La., for State of Louisiana, as amicus curiae.
Francis J. Mizell, Jr., and Richmond M. Flowers, Montgomery, Ala., for State of Alabama, as amicus curiae.
Joe T. Patterson and Charles Clark, Jackson, Miss., for State of Mississippi, as amicus curiae.
E. Freeman Leverett, Atlanta, Ga., for State of Georgia, as amicus curiae.
Levin H. Campbell, Boston, Mass., and Archibald Cox, Washington, D.C., for Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae.
Alan B. Handler, Newark, for State of New Jersey, as amicus curiae.
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
# The Alleluiatic Sequence

This translation of the Latin hymn Cantemus cuncti first appeared in Hymns Noted in 1858. Godescalcus' authorship of the original is disputed.
* "Cantemus Cuncti" in Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences (ed.) by John Mason Neale (1867).
* "The Alleluiatic Sequence" in The Seven Great Hymns of the Mediaeval Church (ed.) by Charles Cooper Nott (1902).
# The Allies' Fairy Book

At the dead time of the night in came the Welsh giant.
THE ALLIES’
FAIRY BOOK
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY EDMUND GOSSE C.B.
AND ILLUSTRATIONS
BY ARTHUR RACKHAM
LONDON·WILLIAM·HEINEMANN
PHILADELPHIA·J·B·LIPPINCOTT·C$^o$
​“Jack the Giant-killer” is reprinted from “English Fairy Tales,” collected by Joseph Jacobs, published by David Nutt; “The Battle of the Birds” from J. F. Campbell's “Popular Tales of the West Highlands”; “Lludd and Llevelys” from Lady Charlotte Guest's version of the “Mabinogion”; “Guleesh” from Dr. Douglas Hyde's “Beside the Fire.” “The Sleeping Beauty” is translated from the French of Perrault by Mr. S. R. Littlewood; “Cesarino and the Dragon” is from vol. ii of Mr. G. W. Waters' “The Nights of Straparola” published by Sidgwick & Jackson; “What came of picking Flowers” from A. Lang's “Grey Fairy Book” The three Japanese stories are from Lord Redesdale's “Tales of Old Japan” “Frost” is from Ralston's “Russian Folk-Tales.” “The Golden Apple-Tree and the Nine Peahens” is from “Serbian Folk-Lore” selected and translated by Madame Mijatovics. “The Last Adventure of Thyl Ulenspiegel” has been translated for the present volume from the romance of Charles de Coster.
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
# Stanford v. Texas

Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. While this principle had been outlined in other cases (e.g., Mapp v. Ohio), this case added another level of constitutional consideration for the issuance of search warrants when articles of expression, protected by the First Amendment, are among the items to be taken. In effect, when a state issues a warrant that includes the order to seize books, it must accord the "most scrupulous exactitude" to the language of the Fourth Amendment. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 476
Stanford v. Texas
Argued: Nov. 12, 1964. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1965
See 380 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 879.
Maury Maverick, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., and John J. McAvoy, New York City, for petitioner.
James E. Barlow, San Antonio, Tex., and Hawthorne Phillips, Brownsville, Tex., for respondent.
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
# Stange v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 270
Stange v. United States
Argued: Dec. 2, 3, 1930. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1931
Mr. W. W. Spalding, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Chas. B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 271 intentionally omitted]
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
# Telegram - Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt (April 16, 1941) 10:16 p.m.

​LMS This telegram must be closely paraphrased before being communicated to anyone; (SC)
London Dated April 16, 1941
Rec'd 10:16 p; m.
Secretary of State,
Washington.
TRIPLE PRIORITY
1515, April 16, 11 p. m. (SECTION THREE)
Meanwhile our efforts to turn off the tap have met with a noteworthy success in the Mediterranean. Our destroyers from Malta in the early hours of this morning, l6th, caught a German—Italian convoy of five large ships loaded with ammunition and mechanical transport and escorted by three Italian destroyers. The whole convoy and all its escort were sunk. We lost one destroyer in the fight. We are keeping the strength of our forces secret for the present. (END or MESSAGE)
WINANT
LMS
# Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 406
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott
Argued: Nov. 18, 1965. --- Decided: Jan 19, 1966
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissents for substantially the same reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, at 640, 85 S.Ct. 1731, at 1743.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of 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
# Teitel Film Corporation v. Cusack

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 139
Teitel Film Corp. et al. v. Cusack et al., Members of the Motion Picture Appeal Board of the City of Chicago
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois
No. 787. Argued: N/A --- Decided: January 29, 1968
Appellants, who were permanently enjoined by the Illinois courts from showing certain motion pictures, challenged the Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance as unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The ordinance allows 50 to 57 days to complete the administrative process, and there is no provision for a prompt judicial decision by the trial court of the alleged obscenity of the film.
Held: Appellants' constitutional rights were violated since the requirements of Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, that the censor within a "specified brief period" either issue a license or go to court to restrain showing the film, and that there be "prompt final judicial decision," were not met.
38 Ill. 2d 53, 230 N.E. 2d 241, judgments reversed and remanded.
Elmer Gertz and Leon N. Miller for appellants.
Raymond F. Simon and Marvin E. Aspen 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
# Teitel Film Corporation v. Cusack/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 139
Teitel Film Corporation v. Cusack
Argued: Jan. 29, 1968. ---
Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice STEWART bases his concurrence in this judgment upon Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515.

## 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
# Stone v. Graham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State, was unconstitutional, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a secular legislative purpose.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
449 U.S. 39
Stone v. Graham
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky
No. 80-321 Argued: --- Decided: November 17, 1980
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function. Cf. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203. That the posted copies are financed by voluntary private contributions is immaterial, for the mere posting under the auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the state government that the Establishment Clause prohibits. Nor is it significant that the Ten Commandments are merely posted rather than read aloud, for it is no defense to urge that the religious practices may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment.
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
# Stone v. Illinois Central Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 347
Stone v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Argued: January 4, 1886. ---

## 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
# Stone v. New Orleans Northeastern Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 352
Stone v. New Orleans Northeastern Railroad Company
Argued: January 4, 1886. ---
J. W. C. Watson, for appellants, John M. Stone and others, c
omposing the Railroad Commission of the State of Mississippi.
Geo. Hoadly, E. M. Johnson, Edwd. Colston, and Wm. L. Nugent, for appellee, New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co.
[Argument of Counsel from page 353 intentionally omitted]
WAITE, C. 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
# Stone v. New York, Chicago & Saint Louis Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 407
Stone v. New York, Chicago & Saint Louis Railroad Company
Argued: Jan. 14, 1953. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1953
See 345 U.S. 914, 73 S.Ct. 639.
Mr. Tyree C. Derrick, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. Lon Hocker, St. Louis, Mo., 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
# Tarry Woo (Edinburgh)/The banks o' Banna

the banks o' Banna.
Shepherds I have lost my love, Have you seen my Anna? Bride of ev'ry shady grove, Upon the banks of Banna. ​I for her my home forsook, Near yon misty mountain, Left my flock, my pipe, my crook, Greenwood, shade and fountain.
Never shall I see them more Until her returning; All the joys of life are o‘er, From gladness chang’d to mourning. Whither is my charmer flown? Shepherds tell me whither? Ah woe for me, perhaps she’s gone For ever and for ever.
# Tarrance v. Florida

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
188 U.S. 519
Tarrance v. Florida
Argued: April 17, 1902. --- Decided: February 23, 1903
Mr. Isaac L. Purcell for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Wm. B. Lamar for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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
# Tarry Woo (Edinburgh)

Dated from external evidence.
TARRY WOO.
The Banks o’ Banna.
Waes me for Prince Charlie.
Woo’d an’ married an’ a’.
EDINBURGH: printed for the booksellers.
* Tarry Woo
* The Banks o' Banna
* Waes me for Prince Charlie
* Woo'd an' married an' a
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
# Tarry Woo (Edinburgh)/Tarry woo

Dated from external evidence.
tarry woo.
Tarry woo, tarry woo, Tarry woo is ill to spin, Card it weel, card it weel, Card it weel ere ye begin. When ’tis carded, row’d and spun, Then the work is haflens done; But when woven, drest and clean, It may be cleading for a queen.
Sing, my bonny harmless sheep, That feed upon the mountains steep, Bleeting sweetly as ye go Thro' the winter's frost and snow; Hart and hynd and fallow deer No be ha‘f so useful are; Frae kings to him that hands the plow, Are all oblig'd to tarry woo.
Up ye shepherds, dance and skip, O'er the hills and valleys trip, Sing up the praise of tarry woo, Sing the flocks that bear it too: Harmless creatures without blame, That dead the back and cram the wame ​Keep us warm and hearty fou! Lease me on the tarry woo.
How happy is a shepherd's life, Far frae courts and free of strife, Wile the gimmers bleet and bae, And the lambkins answer mae? No such musick to his ear, Of thief or fox he has no fear; Sturdy kent, and colly too, Well defend the tarry woo.
He lives content, and envies none; Not even a monarch on his throne, Who’ he the royal sceptre sways, Has not sweeter holidays, Who'd be a king, can ony tell, When a shepherd sings sae well; Sings sae vrell, and pays his due, With honest heart and tarry woo?
# Tarry Woo (Edinburgh)/Waes me for Prince Charlie

waes me for prince charlie
A wee bird came to our ha’ door, It warbled sweet and clearly, And aye the overcome o’ its sang, Was waes me for Prince Charlie! O! when I heard the bonny bonny bird, The tears came drapping rarely; I took my bannet aff my head, For well I lo’ed Prince Charlie.
Quo’ I, My bird, my bonny bonny bird, Is that a tale ye borrow? ​Or is't some words ye've learnt by rote, Or a lilt o' dool and sorrow? Ah! no, no, no, the wee bird sang I've flown sin morning early; But sic a day o'wind and rain; Oh! waes me for Prince Charlie.
On hills that are by right his ain He roams a lonely stranger; On ilka hand he‘s press'd by want, On ilka side by danger. Yestreen I met him in a glen, My heart near bursted fairly, For sadly chang'd indeed was he; Oh! waes me for Prince Charlie.
Dark night came'on the tempest howl'd Out o'er the hills and valleys; And where was't that your prince lay down, Whose hame should been a palace? He rowed him in a Highland plaid, Which covered him but sparely, And slept beneath a bush o'broom: Oh! waes me for Prince Charlie.
But now the bird saw some red-coats, And he shook his wings wi' anger; ​O this is no a land for me, I'll tarry here nae langer. A while he hovered on the wing, Ere he departed fairly; But weel l mind the fareweel strain,—— ‘Twas, waes me for Prince Charlie.
# Tarry Woo

* "Tarry woo", in Tarry woo (n.d.), a chapbook printed in Edinburgh
* "Tarry woo", in Battle of the Boyn, or, King William crossing the Boyn Water (n.d), a chapbook with no printing location
* "Tarry woo", in Virgin's Choice, or, Youth Preferred to Old Age (1800), a chapbook printed in Glasgow
* "Tarry woo is ill to spin", in Dear is my little native vale (n.d.), a chapbook printed in Stirling
* "Tarry Woo", in Waes me for Prince Charly (1820), a chapbook printed in Edinburgh
* "Tarry woo", in The Book of Scottish Song (1843), edited by Alexander Whitelaw
# The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Providence (county)

Edition of 1879. See also Providence County, Rhode Island on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
PROVIDENCE, the N. county of Rhode Island, bordered N. and E. by Massachusetts and W. by Connecticut, and drained by the Blackstone river, which runs partly along the E. border, and the Pawtuxet, which forms a portion of
the S. boundary; area, 380 sq. m.; pop. in 1870, 149,190. It has an uneven surface and generally fertile soil. It is intersected by several railroads centring at Providence. The chief productions in 1870 were 9,887 bushels of rye, 85,114 of Indian corn, 15,386 of oats, 9,900 of barley, 329,515 of potatoes, 38,606 tons of hay, 3,330 lbs. of wool, 296,128 of butter, and 30,235 of cheese. There were 3,323 horses, 8,056 milch cows, 1,369 working oxen, 3,655 other cattle, 1,667 sheep, and 6,612 swine. There are numerous manufactories, chiefly at Providence, the county seat.
# The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Raleigh (city)

Edition of 1879. See also Raleigh, North Carolina on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
RALEIGH, a city of Wake co., North Carolina, capital of the county and state, on the Raleigh and Gaston and the Raleigh and Augusta Air Line railroads, and on the North Carolina division of the Richmond and Danville railroad, 6 m. W. of the Neuse river, and 230 m. S. by W. of Washington; lat. 35° 47′ N., lon. 78° 48′ W.; pop. in 1850, 4,518; in 1860, 4,780; in 1870, 7,790, of whom 4,094 were colored. It is pleasantly situated on
an elevation, and is very regularly laid out. In the centre is a park of ten acres called Union square, from which extend four streets, 99 ft. wide, dividing the city into four parts, in each of which is a square of four acres. The state house is of granite, 166 ft. long and 90 ft. wide, and cost $531,000. The old state house, containing Canova's statue of Washington, was burned in 1831. Other public buildings are the state geological museum, the state institution for the deaf and dumb and the blind, the state insane asylum, the state penitentiary, the county court house, and the county jail. The United States court house and post office, a fine granite building, is in course of erection (1875). The state supreme court and the United States circuit court for the eastern district of North Carolina are held here. There is a large trade in cotton and dry goods. The city contains the shops of the Raleigh and Gaston and Raleigh and Augusta Air Line railroads, two iron founderies, two cigar manufactories, a manufactory of pumps, two or three marble yards, several printing and binding establishments, and three national banks, with an aggregate capital of $700,000. There are three hotels, two public halls, separate public schools for white and colored children, three female seminaries, under the management of the Baptists, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians respectively, several private schools, two libraries in the state house (the law library with 4,000 volumes, and the state library with 25,000 volumes), two daily, one semi-weekly, and nine weekly newspapers, and Baptist, Christian, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic churches. The site of Raleigh having been selected as the seat of government in 1788, it was laid out in 1792 and incorporated as a city in 1794.