OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Gonzales v. United States (63 U.S. 161)/Separate Campbell

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Separate Opinion Campbell
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 161
Gonzales v. United States
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered a separate opinion, in which Mr. Justice NELSON concurred.
The plaintiff was confirmed in his claim to a parcel of land designated as San Antonio, or El Pescadero, in the county of Santa Cruz, by the board of commissioners. The description of the land in their decree is as follows:
'Being the same which has been held and occupied by the present claimant since the year 1833 to the present time, and is bounded as follows: Beginning at the mouth of the Arroyo de Butano, and running along the sea coast, and bordering thereon, to the boundary line of Antonio Buelna, the distance being one league, a little more or less; thence with the line of said Buelna east three-quarters of a league; thence a line southerly parallel with the sea coast until it intersects the Arroyo del Butano, at the distance of three-quarters of a league from the coast; thence along said arroyo and bordering thereon to its mouth, the place of beginning; the same being in extent three-fourths of a square league, a little more or less. For a more particular description, reference being had to the original grant and map contained in the expediente from the archives now in the custody of the United States surveyor general for California, the first of which and a traced copy of the latter are filed in the case.'
The parties appealed to the District Court, and, upon the hearing of the cause, the decree of the commissioners was affirmed, and it was further ordered, that the claim of the said Juan Jose Gonzales is a good and valid claim to the land known by the name of San Antonio, or Pescadero, to the extent and within the boundaries mentioned in the grant and map, the original of the former and copy of the latter being on file in the records of this case. From this decree the plaintiff appealed. The only question presented on the appeal is, whether the grant is to be located according to the natura calls in the grant, or whether the claimant is to be confined to the quantity specified in the 4th condition of the grant. But the decision of this question is reserved in the decree of the District Court, and will properly arise after the location. The failure to direct the precise manner of the location is not erroneous. The result therefore is, that the decree must be affirmed.
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
# Gleason v. Wood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 679
Gleason v. Wood
Argued: February 23, 1912. ---
Messrs. W. L. Sturdevant, david C. McCurtain, and Edward P. Hill for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Lamar 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
# Gleason v. Wood/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 679
Gleason v. Wood
Argued: February 23, 1912. ---
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are Choctaws owning homesteads and surplus granted under the terms of the Atoka agreement. Their applications to enjoin the officers of the state of Oklahoma from assessing their lands for taxation for the year 1909 were denied. All of the questions involved are disposed of by the decision in Choate v. Trapp, just rendered. [[[224 U.S. 665]], 56 L. ed. --, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565.] The judgment, therefore, is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion. Reversed.

## 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
# Gleason v. Thaw

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
236 U.S. 558
Gleason v. Thaw
Argued: January 19, 1915. --- Decided: February 23, 1915
Mr. John B. Gleason, in propria persona, for petitioner.
Mr. William A. Stone 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
# Gleason v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 349
Gleason v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company
Argued: Nov. 22, 1928. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1929
Mr. Edward Brennan, of Savannah, Ga., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 350 intentionally omitted]
Mr. E. Ormonde Hunter, of Savannah, Ga., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 351 intentionally omitted]
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
# Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
140 U.S. 435
Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railway Company
I. H. Ford and Guion Miller, for plaintiff in error.
Linden Kent, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 437-439 intentionally omitted]
LAMAR, J., after stating the facts as above, 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
# Gleason v. White

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
199 U.S. 54
Gleason v. White
Argued: and submitted March 16, 17, 1905. --- Decided: May 29, 1905
In 1845 fractional township 53 south, range 42 west, in Dade county, Florida, was surveyed and a plat thereof was approved and filed in the office of the surveyor general in Florida, and also in the office of the Land Department of Washington. By this survey fractional section 19 was divided into two lots, numbered 1 and 2, containing 164.84 acres. In 1875 a resurvey was made of the township, plats of which were also duly approved and filed in the office of the surveyor general in Florida, and with the Land Department at Washington. By this new survey, said section 19 was divided into 7 lots, containing, in the aggregate, 337.76 acres. The difference between the two surveys of section 19 is shown in the following plats.
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
On June 24, 1878, a patent was issued to William H. Gleason, on a homestead application, for a tract described as lots 1 and 2 of section 19 containing 164.84 acres, according to the official plat of the survey of 1845. Plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, claims by deed from the patentee. On May 4, 1885, lot 5 of section 19, according to the survey in 1875, was patented by the United States to Florida as swamp land, and thereafter deeded by the state to the defendant. In 1898 this action to recover a part of lot 5 was commenced in the circuit court of the seventh judicial circuit of Florida, in and for Dade county. The case was tried by the court without a jury; a judgment rendered for the defendant was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and thereafter brought to this court on writ of error. Included in the action was lot 1 of section 19, as shown by the plat of 1875, but, as judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in respect to that tract, it is unnecessary to further refer to it. There was a stipulation as to certain facts, with a provision that testimony of further facts might be received, and that the court might view the premises. The findings of the court recite that it viewed the premises, and, upon the stipulated acts, and further testimony incorporated in a bill of exceptions, found generally for the defendant as to lot 5.
Mr. George M. Robbins for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 56-59 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edward L. White in propria persona 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
# Gonzales' Resignation Letter

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
# Gonzales v. Beto
## Concurring Opinion

    Stewart

## Dissenting Opinion

    Rehnquist
Supreme Court of the United States
405 U.S. 1052
Gonzales v. Beto, Corrections Director
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 71-5580 Argued: N/A --- Decided: April 17, 1972
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment reversed and case remanded. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466.
Reported below: 445 F. 2d 1202.
# Gonzales v. Buist

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 126
Gonzales v. Buist
Argued: March 4, 1912. --- Decided: April 1, 1912
Messrs. H. H. Scoville and J. R. F. Savage for appellant.
Mr. Willis Sweet for appellees.
Mr. Chief 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
# Gonzales v. Carhart/Concurrence Thomas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Thomas
* Dissenting Opinion Ginsburg
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).
# Ford v. Douglas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
46 U.S. 143
Ford v. Douglas

## 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
# Ford v. Ford

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 187
Ford v. Ford
Argued: Nov. 15, 1962. --- Decided: Dec 10, 1962
W. Francis Marion, Greenville, S.C., for petitioner.
Wesley M. Walker, Greenville, S.C., 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
# General Order No. 11 (Arroyo)

Source: Official Gazette. Vol. 106, No. 3. Office of the President. 2010. p. 313.
Layout 2
MALACAÑANG MANILA
General Order No. 11
Whereas, Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 placed under martial law the Province of Maguindanao, except for the identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as referred to in the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRP-MILF Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities, and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein;
Whereas, by virtue of said Proclamation, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is constitutionally bound to exercise her military powers and prerogative under the Constitution in order to suppress lawless violence and all rebellious activities in the affected areas in the Province of Maguindanao and to restore public order and safety therein;
Whereas, it is imperative to call upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to prevent and suppress lawless violence and acts of rebellion in the Province of Maguindanao (except for certain identified areas) and to immediately carry out necessary and appropriate actions and measures to prevent and suppress the lawlessness;
Now, therefore, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, do hereby direct the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to undertake all measures, within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and laws, to prevent and suppress all acts of rebellion and lawlessness in the affected areas in the Province of Maguindanao pursuant to Proclamation No. 1959.
Done in the City of Manila, this 4th day of December, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Nine.
(Sgd.) Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) Eduardo R. Ermita Executive Secretary
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# General Order No. 11 (Marcos)

Source: Official Gazette. Vol. 68, No. 41. Office of the President. 1972. pp. 7947–7948.
Layout 2
MALACAÑANG RESIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA
GENERAL ORDER No. 11
Whereas, martial law has been declared under Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972 and is now in effect throughout the land;
Whereas, officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, more than any other body of government personnel, have been called upon to carry and are now carrying a great share of the grave burden of suppressing the activities of groups of men actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to seize political and state power in the Philippines, and of eradicating widespread lawlessness, anarchy, disorder and wanton destruction of lives and property now prevailing throughout the country;
Whereas, it is necessary to enhance and keep at a high level the morale and efficiency of the officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while they are thus engaged in the serious and delicate tasks aforementioned;
Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, do hereby authorize and prescribe the following increased rates of monthly base pay for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, effective October 1, 1972, provided, that the rates of pay hereunder prescribed shall not be the basis of retirement gratuity or pension for all military personnel who were retired prior to the effective date of this Order:
₱970.00
450.00
550.00
700.00
900.00
1,100.00
1,300.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
Done in the City of Manila, this 30th day of September in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two.
(Sgd.) Ferdinand E. Marcos President Republic of the Philippines
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# General Order No. 10 (Marcos)

Source: Official Gazette. Vol. 68, No. 41. Office of the President. 1972. pp. 7946–7947.
Layout 2
MALACAÑANG RESIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA
GENERAL ORDER No. 10
Whereas, martial law has been declared under Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972 and is now in effect throughout the land;
Whereas, officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, more than any other body of government personnel, have been called upon to carry and are now carrying a great share of the grave burden of suppressing the activities of groups of men actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to seize political and state power in the Philippines, and of eradicating widespraed lawlessness, anarchy, disorder and wanton destruction of lives and property now prevailing throughout the country;
Whereas, it is necessary to enhance and keep at a high level the morale and efficiency of the officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while they are thus engaged in the serious and delicate tasks aforementioned;
Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, do hereby authorize and prescribe the following increased rates of monthly quarters allowance for enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines effective October 1, 1972:
₱100.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
Done in the City of Manila, this 30th day of September in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two.
(Sgd.) Ferdinand E. Marcos President Republic of the Philippines
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Philippine government (see Republic Act No. 8293 Sec. 176).
All official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.
An additional license tag is required in order to demonstrate why this work is freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Frau Trude

Notes
43.—FRAU TRUDE.
There was once a little girl who was obstinate and inquisitive, and when her parents told her to do anything, she did not obey them, so how could she fare well? One day she said to her parents, "I have heard so much of Frau Trude, I will go to her some day. People say that everything about her does look so strange, and that there are such odd things in her house, that I have become quite curious!" Her parents absolutely forbade her, and said, "Frau Trude is a bad woman, who does wicked things, and if thou goest to her, thou art no longer our child." But the maiden did not let herself be turned aside by her parent's prohibition, and still went to Frau Trude. And when she got to her, Frau Trude said, "Why art thou so pale?" "Ah," she replied, and her whole body trembled, "I have been so terrified at what I have seen." "What hast thou seen?" "I saw a black man on your steps." "That was a collier." "Then I saw a green man." "That was a huntsman." "After that I saw a blood-red man." "That was a butcher." "Ah, Frau Trude, I was terrified; I looked through the window and saw not you, but, as I verily believe, the devil himself with a head of fire." "Oho!" said she, "then thou hast seen the witch in her proper costume. I have been waiting for thee, and wanting thee a long time already; thou shalt give me some light." Then she changed the girl into a block of wood, and threw it into the fire. And when it was in full blaze she sat down close to it, and warmed herself by it, and said, "That shines bright for once in a way."
# Green Mountain Songster/Jane Jenkins

Will you wear grey, Onere, Onere? Will you wear grey, Jane Jenkins? No, I won't wear grey for its colour of the clay, So buy me my tallawalawise, so buy me my tallawalawise.
Will you wear black, Onere, will you wear black, Onere? I won't wear black, for the colour it is slack, So buy me the tallawalawise, so buy me the tallawalawise, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, white bands appear, Where are the robes that you wear, Jane Jenkins.
Will you wear red, Onere, will you wear red, Onere? l will not wear red for the colour I do dread, So buy me my tallawalawise, so buy me my tallawalawise, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, white bands appear.
Will you wear green, Onere, will you wear green, Onere? I won't wear green for it's the colour that is mean; So buy me my tallawalawise, so buy me my tallawalawise, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, white bands appear.
Will you wear white, Onere, will you wear white, Onere? Will you wear white, Jennie Jenkins O no I won't wear the white 'tis a colour I dislike, So buy me my tallawalawise, so buy me my tallawalawise, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, white bands appear.
Will you wear yellow, Onere, will you wear yellow, Onere? Will you wear yellow, Jennie Jerkins So buy me my tallawalawise, so buy me my tallawalawise, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, white bands appear.
Will you wear blue, Onere, will you wear blue, Onere? Will you wear blue, Jennie Jenkins O yes, I'll wear blue for the colour of it's true, So you've bought me mmy tallawalawise, so you've bought me my tallawalawise, So double rose Dillevally, Sukey, Dicky, white bands appear.
# Green Mountain Songster/Renaldine

"Oh love," she said, "I'm sore afraid For the foeman's force and you For they'll track you in the lowland plain And all the valley through My kinsman frowned when you are named Oh, your life they would destroy 'Oh beware,' they said, 'Of Renaldine On the mountains of Pomeroy.'"
"Fear not, fear not, my love," he cries "For the foeman's force and me For not change shall fall whate'er betide On the arm that should be free. Come leave your cruel kith and kin And with your soldier flee It's with my gun I will guard you On the mountains of Pomeroy"
The morn has come, she arose and fled From her cruel kin and home And searched the wood all rosy red And the tumbling torrent's foam But the rain came down and the tempest roared And did all around destroy And a pale drowned bride met Renaldine On the mountains of Pomeroy
# Green Mountain Songster

OCLC:35199779. A revised 1939 edition is copyright in the United States: (Renewal: R405685).

## Contents

* Jane Jenkins
* Renaldine
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