OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Fungi from Yuggoth

* related portals: Cthulhu Mythos.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Written 1929-30. Initially published separately in a variety of different publications. Fungi from Yuggoth is a sonnet sequence by supernatural horror writer H. P. Lovecraft that constitute a continuous first person narrative. Warning: template has been deprecated. This version of the work appears to be incomplete, lacking the final three sonnets of other versions. In addition, Sonnets XXVIII and XXXIII only contain 13 lines, rather than the expected 14.
FUNGI FROM YUGGOTH
by
HOWARD PHILLIPS LOVECRAFT
FAPA June 1943
Bill Evans
FUNGI FROM YUGGOTH
H. P. Lovecraft
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works could have had their copyright renewed between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st of the 29th year.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1937, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 86 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.
It is imperative that contributors ascertain that there is no evidence of a copyright renewal before using this license. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of the work as a copyright violation.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Funk Bros Seed Company v. Kalo Inoculant Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 127
Funk Bros Seed Company v. Kalo Inoculant Company
Mr. H. A. Toulmin, Jr., of Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. J. Bernhard Thiess, 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
# Funeral Sermon and Prayer

The Funeral Sermon and Prayer (Hungarian: Halotti Beszéd és Könyörgés) is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-1195. It was found on the 154a. page of the Codex Pray.Warning: template has been deprecated.
Sermo ſup ſepulchrum.
Do you see, my friends, with your eyes, what we are: truly, we are dust and ash. How much of grace in he (God) created our ancestor, Adam. And he was told to live on every fruit of the Paradise. Whilst he (God) forbid him from the fruit of one tree. He told him why can not eat from it: "truly, on the day when you eat from the fruit, you will die with the death of death." He had heard about his death from the creator God, but he forgot it. He gave way to the allure of Evil. And he ate from the forbidden fruit. And in this fruit, he ate his death. And the fruit's juice was so bitter that it broke away their throats. Not only for himself, but for the whole of his race he ate death. God had been infuriated, and he dropped him into this back-breaking world. And the nest of death and hell arrived. And for the whole race of he. Who are they? We are they. And like you see with your eyes, truly, no man can avoid this pit. Truly, all of us go into this. Glorify our Lord's grace for this soul. To give mercy for him. And give him grace, and forgive all crimes of him. And glorify the Saint Lady, Mary. And the Blessed Michael archangel. And all the angels. To pray for him. And glorify Lord Saint Peter, whom he given power to absolve and castigate, to absolve all the crimes of him. And free him from all of the pursuits of Evil, and from the torments of Hell. And drive him to the peace of the Paradise. And give him way to the Heaven. And give him part in every good. And shout three times to Our Lord. Kirl.
My dear friends, let's pray for the soul of this poor man, whom Our Lord liberated from the prison of that false world. Whose body we are burying today. To let the Lord place him with his grace into the slay of Abraham, Isac and Jacob, to on the day of judgement, with his relatives, resurrect him. And in your souls. clamate III. K.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Family

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Family."
* 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.
* Family, by Katherine Mansfield
* The Family by Helen Bosanquet
* "The Family", poems by Robert Louis Stevenson
* "The Familie", a poem by George Herbert
# Family Happiness

A young wife and her older husband realise they have different ideals of happiness.
* Part I
* Part II
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993/Title I
## TITLE I — GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE
### Sec. 108. Special rules concerning employees of local educational agencies.

===Sec. 109. Notice.===
# Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 575
Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
Argued: Feb. 10, 11, 1942. --- Decided: March 16, 1942
[Syllabus from pages 575-577 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George I. Haight, of Chicago, Ill., S. A. L. Morgan, of Amarillo, Tex., and J. J. Hedrick, of Chicago, Ill., for Natural Gas Pipeline Co. et al.
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., Charles Fahy, Sol. Gen., and Richard H. Demuth, of Washington, D.C., for Federal Power Commission.
Mr. Albert E. Hallett, Jr., of Chicago, Ill., for Illinois Commerce Commission.
Mr. Chief 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
# Federal Power Commission v. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 280
Federal Power Commission v. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Messrs. Leonard B. Sand, Samuel D. Slade, Willard W. Gatchell and Howard E. Wahrenbrock, for petitioner.

## 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
# Federal Power Commission v. Interstate Natural Gas Company Public Service Commission of Missouri

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 577
Federal Power Commission v. Interstate Natural Gas Company Public Service Commission of Missouri
Argued: and Submitted Jan. 11, 1949. --- Decided: April 18, 1949
[Syllabus from pages 577-579 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Bradford Ross, of Washington, D.C., for Federal Power commission.
Mr. John P. Randolph, of St. Joseph, Mo., for Public Service Commission of Missouri.
Mr. William C. Wines, of Chicago, Ill., for Illinois Commerce Commission.
Mr. John T. Cahill, of New York City, for Memphis Natural Gas Company.
Mr. Forney Johnston, of Birmingham, Ala., for Southern Natural Gas Company.
Mr. William A. Dougherty, of New York City, for Interstate Natural Gas Company and Mississippi River Fuel Corporation.
Mr. Charles C. Crabtree, of Memphis, Tenn., for Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division.
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
# Federal Power Commission v. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 280
Federal Power Commission v. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company
Mr. Harry S. Littman, for respondents Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. and others.
Mr. Clarence H. Ross, for respondents Natural Gas Pipeline Co. and others.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss respondent's petition for review as moot. Order 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
# Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 17
Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Company
Argued: Oct. 20, 21, 1952. --- Decided: Nov 10, 1952
See 344 U.S. 910, 73 S.Ct. 326.
[Syllabus from pages 17-18 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Harry A. Poth, Jr., Washington, D.C., and A. C. Inman, Boise, Idaho, 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
# Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 375
Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Company
Argued: May 2, 1938. --- Decided: May 23, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Oswald Ryan, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. Walter Biddle Saul, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Edward F. Huber, of New York City, for respondents.
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
# Fitchburg

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Fitchburg."
* 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.

## Fitchburg, Massachusetts

* "Fitchburg," in The American Cyclopædia (1879)
* "Fitchburg," in Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition (9) (1879)
* "Fitchburg," in The New International Encyclopædia, New York: Dodd, Mead and Co. (1905)
* "Fitchburg," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Fitchburg, Mass.," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
* "Fitchburg," in The Encyclopedia Americana, New York: The Encyclopedia Americana Corporation (1920)
* "Fitchburg," in Collier's New Encyclopedia, New York: P. F. Collier & Son Co. (1921)
# Fitcher's Bird

* related portals: Brothers Grimm.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
English-language translations of Fitchers Vogel include:
* "Fitchers Vogel" (German versions) Brothers Grimm
* "Fitcher's Bird", translated by Margaret Raine Hunt, in Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1 (1884)
* "The Forbidden Room", translated by Edgar Taylor and Marian Edwardes, edited by Marian Edwardes, illustrated by Robert Anning Bell, in Grimm's Household Tales (1912)
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
# Fiswick v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 211
Fiswick v. United States
[Syllabus from pages 211-213 intentionally omitted]
Frederick M. P. Pearse, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Leon Ulman, of 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
# Fitch Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 582
Fitch Company v. United States
Argued: Dec. 13, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1945
Mr. Arnold F. Schaetzle, of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.
Mr. Andrew D. Sharpe, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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
# Fitch v. Creighton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
65 U.S. 159
Fitch v. Creighton
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio.
It was a bill filed on the equity side of the court by Creighton, a citizen of Iowa, against Fitch, a citizen of Ohio, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court. The Circuit Court decreed against Fitch, who brought up this appeal.
It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Cooke for the appellant, and Mr. Swayne for the appellee.
The principal question in the case was whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case, which depended upon the facts involved in it. A particular statement of these would not be interesting to the profession generally, and therefore they are omitted. The propositions for which Mr. Cooke contended, in support of the demurrer below, were—
I. That the complainant does not show himself possessed of any right which he can enforce directly against this defendant or his property; and—II. That the liability of the defendant is not such an one as can be enforced against him in a court of equity, without the aid of the statute, which cannot confer jurisdiction upon the courts of the United States.
Mr. Swayne's points, in opposition to the above, were thus stated:
I. It seems to be conceded that, when the local statutes of a State give rights to an individual, the courts of the United States will enforce those rights in case where they have jurisdiction of the parties.
1. It is not pretended that the States can direct the remedy by which rights are to be enforced, which the Federal courts are bound to pursue.
2. But it is claimed that where the statute of a State creates a right which may be enforced by remedies already existing and resorted to in the latter courts, that these courts will enforce the right by their own known remedies and usages, in cases where they have jurisdiction, although the local state may direct a special mode of proceeding.
The General Smith, 4 Wheaton's Rep., 438.
II. By the statute and the contract with the city, the complainant acquired, by operation of law, rights which courts of equity, by their long-established rules and usages, will enforce.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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
# Goesaert v. Cleary

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law which prohibited women from being employed as bartenders unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) subsequently overruled Goesaert. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Rutledge
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 464
Goesaert v. Cleary
Argued: Nov. 19, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 20, 1948
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Anne R. Davidow, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Mr. Edmund E. Shepherd, of Lansing, Mich., for appellees.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Goesaert v. Cleary/Dissent Rutledge

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Rutledge
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 464
Goesaert v. Cleary
Argued: Nov. 19, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 20, 1948
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice MURPHY join, dissenting.
While the equal protection clause does not require a legislature to achieve 'abstract symmetry' or to classify with 'mathematical nicety,' that clause does require lawmarkers to refrain from invidious distinctions of the sort drawn by the statute challenged in this case.
The statute arbitrarily discriminates between male and female owners of liquor establishments. A male owner, although he himself is always absent from his bar, may employ his wife and daughter as barmaids. A female owner may neither work as a barmaid hereself nor employ her daughter in that position, even if a man is always present in the establishment to keep order. This inevitable result of the classification belies the assumption that the statute was motivated by a legislative solicitude for the moral and physicial well-being of women who, but for the law, would be employed as barmaids. Since there could be no other conceivable justification for such discrimination against women owners of liquor establishments, the statute should be held invalid as a denial of equal protection.

## Notes

* ↑ Patsone v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 144, 34 S.Ct. 281, 282, 58 L.Ed. 539.
* ↑ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 59, 61, 78 82, 31 S.Ct. 337, 340-342, 55 L.Ed. 369, Ann.Cas.1912C, 160; see also Tigner v. State of Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S.Ct. 879, 882, 84 L.Ed. 1124, 130 A.L.R. 1321; Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 501, 51 S.Ct. 228, 229, 75 L.Ed. 482; People of State of New York ex rel. Buyant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 73-77, 49 S.Ct. 61, 65-67, 73 L.Ed. 184, 62 AL.R. 785; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 384, 35 S.Ct. 342, 344, 345, 59 L.Ed. 628, L.R.A.1915F, 829.
* ↑ Cf. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655; State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208; McCabe v. Atchis n, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 35 S.Ct. 69, 59 L.Ed. 169; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220. And see Kotch v. River Port Pilot Commissioners, 330 U.S. 552, dissenting opinion 564, 67 S.Ct. 910, 916, 91 L.Ed. 1093.
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
# God’s Plaything Man

Source, including CC-BY-SA license:
No truer words were ever spoken than A plaything of our Lord to call a man. For is there anything a man has tried That God’s in no position to deride? He’s seen no God, but still he is so proud That a god-like one he calls himself aloud. His senses all with selfish love gone blind, He thinks the world for him alone designed. He’d been before he was; when he’s not there, He shall remain. Oh, fools are everywhere.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Goesele v. Bimeler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
55 U.S. 589
Goesele v. Bimeler

## 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
# Federal Reporter/Third series/Volume 492

* 492 F.3d 1 (2007) Sanchez v. Triple-S Management, Corp.
* 492 F.3d 14 (2007) Mongeau v. City of Marlborough
* 492 F.3d 20 (2007) Babani v. Gonzales
* 492 F.3d 24 (2007) w:Jean v. Massachusetts State Police
* more