OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 407
Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Argued: November 3, 4, 1908. --- Decided: December 14, 1908
Messrs. John G. Milburn, John C. Spooner, and Robert S. Lovett for harriman.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 408-410 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walker D. Hines and Paul D. Cravath for Kahn.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 410-411 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Cordenio A. Severance, Frank B. Kellogg, and Henry L. Stimson for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 411-413 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Harriman v. Northern Securities Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
197 U.S. 244
Harriman v. Northern Securities Company
Argued: March 1, 2, 1905. --- Decided: March 6, 1905
Edward H. Harriman, Winslow S. Pierce, Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, and the Equitable Trust Company of New York exhibited their bill against the Northern Securities Company in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey April 20, 1904, on which, with accompanying affidavits and exhibits, a restraining order was issued, pending an application for an injunction as prayed in the bill. April 26 an amended bill was filed, and the application for a preliminary injunction was heard May 20, 21, and 23 by Bradford, J., holding the circuit 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
# Hawke v. Smith

United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 221
Hawke v. Smith
Argued: April 23, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1920
Mr. J. Frank Hanly, of Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 222-224 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice DAY 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
# Hawker v. New York

Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New York state law preventing convicted felons from practicing medicine, even when the felony conviction occurred before the law was enacted. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
170 U.S. 189
Hawker v. New York
In 1878, the plaintiff in error (defendant below) was tried and convicted in the court of sessions of Kings county, N. Y., of the crime of abortion, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 10 years. In 1893 the legislature of the state of New York passed an act entitled the 'Public Health Law' (Laws 1893, c. 661), which, as amended by the Laws of 1895 (chapter 398), provides, among other things, as follows:
'See. 153. Any person who, * * * after conviction of a felony, shall attempt to practice medicine, or shall so practice, * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisonment for six months for the first offense, and on conviction of any subsequent offense, by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not less than one year, or by both fine and imprisonment.'
Under this statute, defendant was indicted in April, 1896, in the court of general sessions of the peace for the city and county of New York. The indictment alleged the conviction in 1878, and charged that, having been so convicted of the crime and felony of abortion, defendant did, on the 22d day of February, 1896, in the city of New York, unlawfully practice medicine, 'by then and there unlawfully examining, treating, and prescribing for one Dora Henig.' To this indictment he demurred. The demurrer was overruled. and, upon a plea of not guilty, he was tried, convicted, and sentended to pay a fine of $250. That conviction having been sustained by the court of appeals of the state (152 N. Y. 234, 46 N. E. 607), and a remittitur sent down, a final judgment was entered in the court of general sessions, whereupon he sued out this writ of error.
Hugh O. Pentecost, for plaintiff in error.
Asa Bird Gardner, John D. Lindsay, and R. C. Taylor, for the People of New York.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Hawke's Bay Herald/June 4, 1890/Euthanasia for Murderers

Page 4 of Hawke's Bay Herald, June 4, 1890.
The Lancet, discussing a recent proposal that murderers should be narcotised to death in a lethal chamber, says:— "First and foremost is the question whether it is advisable to give to murderers, and to them alone, the privilege of being deprived of life by absolute euthanasia. What have they, of all me, one that the pains of death shall not fall upon them? And why should they, of all men, go out of existence in a gentle sleep, knowing no more of their death than of their birth. The common theory is that by taking the life of criminals the law deters others, by the awful dread of the penalty, from committing the crime for the punishment of which the penalty is cast. Is euthanasia likely to be a deterrent? No man who has been in the practice of medicine for five years would admit anything of the kind. Practitioners of medicine learn very soon of the history of those, by no means a limited class, who would willingly die at any hour were it not for fear of the suffering that might attend the supreme event. If men never committed suicide, or if we could trust a man under sentence of death to his own devices in his cell, with appliances for suicide at his command, there would be some reason in the argument. But when we know that life is so little valued by a large class wearied of it, and that many would gladly seek death if the latter would only come without a pang, it is surely the perfection of folly to offer that class the very method of death which it does not fear. Such a proceeding is like offering a premium on murder. Why, then, alter the present state of things? In the present method of execution by hanging there is not one bit too much of the deterrent element; for, as it is well known physiologically, there is no infliction of special agony beyond that common to dying from any sudden and violent mode of death."
# Gompers v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
233 U.S. 604
Gompers v. United States
Argued: January 7 and 8, 1914. --- Decided: April 20 and 21, 1914
Messrs. Alton B. Parker, Jackson H. Ralston, Frederick L. Siddons, and William E. Richardson for Gompers et al.
Messrs. J. J. Darlington, Daniel Davenport, Clarence R. Wilson, and James M. Beck for defendant in error and appellee.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court;

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gomillion v. Lightfoot

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court decision that found an electoral district created to disenfranchise blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment.

## Concurring Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 339
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 32 Argued: October 18-19, 1960 --- Decided: November 14, 1960
Negro citizens sued in a Federal District Court in Alabama for a declaratory judgment that an Act of the State Legislature changing the boundaries of the City of Tuskegee is unconstitutional and for an injunction against its enforcement. They alleged that the Act alters the shape of Tuskegee from a square to an irregular 28-sided figure; that it would eliminate from the City all but four or five of its 400 Negro voters without eliminating any white voter; and that its effect was to deprive Negroes of their right to vote in Tuskegee elections on account of their race. The District Court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that it had no authority to declare the Act invalid or to change any boundaries of municipal corporations fixed by the State Legislature.
Held: It erred in doing so, since the allegations, if proven, would establish that the inevitable effect of the Act would be to deprive Negroes of their right to vote on account of their race, contrary to the Fifteenth Amendment. Pp. 340-348.
(a) Even the broad power of a State to fix the boundaries of its municipalities is limited by the Fifteenth Amendment, which forbids a State to deprive any citizen of the right to vote because of his race. Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 , and related cases distinguished. Pp. 342-345.
(b) A state statute which is alleged to have the inevitable effect of depriving Negroes of their right to vote in Tuskegee because of their race is not immune to attack simply because the mechanism employed by the Legislature is a "political" redefinition of municipal boundaries. Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, distinguished. Pp. 346-348.
270 F.2d 594, reversed.
Mr. Fred D. Gray, Montgomery, Ala., and Robert L. Carter, New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. James J. Carter, Montgomery, Ala., for respondents.
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae.
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
# Gomperts v. Chase A-245

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 1237
Robert GOMPERTS et al. v. Charles E. CHASE et al.No. A-245.
Mr. Justice 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
# Gon-Shay-Ee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
130 U.S. 343
Gon-Shay-Ee
130 U.S. 343
9 S.Ct. 542
32 L.Ed. 973 Ex parte GON-SHAY-EE.
April 15, 1889.
S. F. Phillips, W. H. Lamarand and J. G. Zachry, for petitioner.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for respondent.
MILLER, 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
# He who on earth as man was known

The Refuge, River, and Rock of the Church by John Newton
    He who on earth as man was known,
    And bore our sins and pains;
    Now, seated on th' eternal throne,
    The God of glory reigns.
    His hands the wheels of nature guide
    With an unerring skill;
    And countless worlds extended wide,
    Obey his sovereign will.
    While harps unnumbered sound his praise,
    In yonder world above;
    His saints on earth admire his ways,
    And glory in his love.
    His righteousness, to faith revealed,
    Wrought out for guilty worms,
    Affords a hiding place and shield,
    From enemies and storms.
    This land, through which his pilgrims go,
    Is desolate and dry;
    But streams of grace from him o'erflow
    Their thirst to satisfy.
    When troubles, like a burning sun,
    Beat heavy on their head;
    To this almighty Rock they run,
    And find a pleasing shade.
    How glorious he! how happy they
    In such a glorious friend!
    Whose love secures them all the way,
    And crowns them at the end.
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
# He went by sleep that drowsy route

He went by sleep that drowsy route To the surmising Inn — At day break to begin his race Or ever to remain —
# He wonders whether to praise or to blame her

* "He wonders whether to praise or to blame her" from 1914 and other poems (1915)
* "He Wonders Whether to Praise or to Blame Her" from The Collected Poems of Rupert Brooke (1915)
# He wishes for the Cloths of Heaven

Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half-light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
# He touched me, so I live to know

He touched me, so I live to know That such a day, permitted so, I groped upon his breast — It was a boundless place to me And silenced, as the awful sea Puts minor streams to rest.
And now, I'm different from before, As if I breathed superior air — Or brushed a Royal Gown — My feet, too, that had wandered so — My Gypsy face — transfigured now — To tenderer Renown —
Into this Port, if I might come, Rebecca, to Jerusalem, Would not so ravished turn — Nor Persian, baffled at her shrine Lift such a Crucifixial sign To her imperial Sun.
# Head Money Cases (112 U.S. 580)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 580
Head Money Cases
District of New York.]
CUNARD STEAM-SHIP CO. (Limited)
v. ROBERTSON, Collector, etc.
SAME
v.
SAME.
[In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.]
December 8, 1884.
[Syllabus and statement of facts from pages 580-582 intentionally omitted]
Geo. De Forest Lord, for Cunard Steam-ship Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 582-584 intentionally omitted]
Philip J. Joachimsen and Edwards Pierrepont, for Edye and others.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 584-586 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for Robertson, Collector, etc.
MILLER, J.

## Notes

* ↑ S.C.. 18 Fed. Rep. 147.
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
# He put the Belt around my life

* "He put the belt around my life" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* "He put the belt around my life" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
308 U.S. 90
Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Company
Argued: Oct. 9, 1939. --- Decided: Nov 6, 1939
See 308 U.S. 638, 60 S.Ct. 292
On writ of Certiorari to United States Circuit Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
[Syllabus from pages 90-92 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frank Murphy, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph D. Brady, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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
# Helvetia-Swiss Fire Insurance Company v. Brandenstein

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 588
Helvetia-Swiss Fire Insurance Company v. Brandenstein
Mr. Frederick B. Campbell for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. William V. Rowe and Royall Victor for defendants in error.
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
# Helvetia-Swiss Fire Insurance Company v. Brandenstein/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 588
Helvetia-Swiss Fire Insurance Company v. Brandenstein
Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, 213 U.S. 288, 53 L. ed. 801, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490.

## 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. Winmill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 79
Helvering v. Winmill
Argued: Oct. 12, 1938. --- Decided: Nov 7, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas M. Wilkins, of Washington, D.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
# Helvering v. Wood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 344
Helvering v. Wood
Argued: Feb. 5, 1940. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1940
Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Warner W. Gardner, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Messrs. George M. Wolfson, of New York City, and Dean G. Acheson, 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
# Hiawassee River Power Company v. Carolinatennessee Power Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 341
Hiawassee River Power Company v. Carolinatennessee Power Company
Argued: January 30, 1920. --- Decided: March 22, 1920
Mr. Eugene R. Black, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Julius C. Martin, of Asheville, N. C., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Hibernia Savings Loan Society v. City and County of San Francisco

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
200 U.S. 310
Hibernia Savings Loan Society v. City and County of San Francisco
Argued: December 14, 1905. --- Decided: January 29, 1906
This was an action by the plaintiff in error, begun in the state superior court, to recover certain taxes paid under protest upon two checks or orders for $120,000 and $1,875, respectively, signed by the Treasurer of the United States, and addressed to the Treasurer or an Assistant Treasurer of the United States, for interest accrued upon certain registered bonds of the United States, owned by the plaintiff. These checks were issued in compliance with Rev. Stat. § 3698, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 2479, which requires that 'the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause to be paid, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, any interest falling due or accruing on any portion of the public debt authorized by law.' These checks, which were payable at the United States Treasury at San Francisco at any time within four months from their dete, were not presented immediately for payment, but were withheld by the plaintiff until the first Monday in March, 1899, the day when the status of property, for the purpose of taxation, is determined. Plaintiff did not list these two checks for assessment; but the assessor, in making up his roll for the ensuing year, included them, and, after a fruitless effort to be relieved from the assessment, plaintiff paid the amount of the tax, and brought this suit to recover it back. There were claims for other taxes included in the action, upon which plaintiff was successful; but, in respect to the tax upon the two orders above mentioned, judgment went for the defendant, which was affirmed by the supreme court. 139 Cal. 205, 96 Am. St. Rep. 100, 72 Pac. 920.
Mr. T. C. Van Ness and Messrs. Tobin & Tobin for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Percy V. Long and William I. Brobeck for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brown: Mr. Justice Brown 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
# Hibernia Insurance Company v. St. Louis N. O. Transportation Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 166
Hibernia Insurance Company v. St. Louis N. O. Transportation Company
O. B. Sansum, for appellant.
Given Campbell, for appellees.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Hiawatha's Photographing

* "Hiawatha's Photographing" in Phantasmagoria and Other Poems (1869)
* "Hiawatha's Photographing" in Rhyme? and Reason? (1883)
* "Hiawatha's Photographing" in The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll (1920)
# Hic Jacet

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hic Jacet."
* sister projects: 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.
* "Hic Jacet", a poem by Henry Newbolt
* "Hic Jacet", a poem by R. Howard Spring
* "Hic Jacet", a poem by William Carlos Williams