OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Goat v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 458
Goat v. United States
Argued: October 12 and 13, 1911. --- Decided: April 29, 1912
Messrs. J. C. Stone, Robert J. Boone, S. T. Bledsoe, George C. Crump, H. H. Rogers, J. H. Moxey, J. H. Miley, and B. B. Blakeney for appellants.
Solicitor General Lehmann and Messrs. A. N. Frost and Harlow A. Leekley, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for appellee.
Mr. 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
# Gober v. City of Birmingham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 374
Gober v. City of Birmingham
Mrs. Constance B. Motley, New York City, for petitioners.
Watts E. Davis, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
J. M. Breckenridge, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
Solicitor General Archibald Cox for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the State of Alabama.
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
# Goblin Feet

Published in Oxford Poetry, 1914—1916 (1917).
I am off down the road Where the fairy lanterns glowed And the little pretty flitter-mice are flying; A slender band of gray It runs creepily away And the hedges and the grasses are a-sighing. The air is full of wings, And of blundery beetle-things That warn you with their whirring and their humming. O! I hear the tiny horns Of enchanted leprechauns And the padded feet of many gnomes a-coming! O! the lights! O! the gleams! O! the little twinkly sounds! O! the rustle of their noiseless little robes! O! the echo of their feet — of their happy little feet! O! the swinging lamps in the starlit globes.
I must follow in their train Down the crooked fairy lane Where the coney-rabbits long ago have gone. And where silvery they sing In a moving moonlit ring All a twinkle with the jewels they have on. They are fading round the turn Where the glow worms palely burn And the echo of their padding feet is dying! O! it’s knocking at my heart—
Let me go! let me start! For the little magic hours are all a-flying.
O! the warmth! O! the hum! O! the colors in the dark! O! the gauzy wings of golden honey-flies! O! the music of their feet — of their dancing goblin feet! O! the magic! O! the sorrow when it dies.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1973, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 50 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Hamlet (Shakespeare)

* related portals: Elizabethan drama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
A tragedy, believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601. The play recounts how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius for the murder of Hamlet's father, the King of Denmark, and subsequent ascension to the throne and marriage to Hamlet's mother. The play vividly charts the course of real and feigned madness—from overwhelming grief to seething rage—and explores themes of corruption, treachery, and revenge.

## Scholarly editions

* Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: A Tragedy, edited by Charles Jennens, Bowyer & Nichols edition (1773) (external scan)
* The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, edited by Edmund Chambers, The Warwick Shakespeare (1894) Google Books
* The Tragedy of Hamlet, edited by Edward Dowden, The Works of Shakespeare, The Arden Shakespeare, 1st ser. (1899) (transcription project)
* Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, in The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Vol. VIII, Oxford edition (1911) (external scan)
* The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, edited by Jack Randall Crawford, The Yale Shakespeare (1917)

## Folios

* The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, from a facsimile copy of the First Folio (1623)

## Quartos

* Q1 Hamlet, First Quarto (British Library Shelfmark: C.34.k.1) (transcription project)
* Q1 The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke (1603)
* Q2 Hamlet, Second Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22276) (transcription project)
* Q2 Hamlet, Second Quarto (Huntington Shelfmark: 69305) (transcription project)
* Q2 variant Hamlet, Second Quarto Variant (British Library Shelfmark: C.34.k.2) (transcription project)
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (British Library Shelfmark: C.34.k.4)
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (British Library Shelfmark: C.71.b.2)
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Bodleian Shelfmark: Arch. G e.13)
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Edinburgh Shelfmark: JA 3734)
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22277) Copy 1
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22277) Copy 2
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22277) Copy 3
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Huntington Shelfmark: 69306)
* Q3 Hamlet, Third Quarto (Huntington Shelfmark: 69307)
# Hamlet (Lamb)

A retelling of Shakespeare's play Hamlet.
* "Hamlet," in Tales from Shakspeare (1831), by Charles and Mary Lamb
* "Hamlet," in Tales from Shakespeare (1908), by Charles and Mary Lamb, illustrated by Arthur Rackham
# Hamm v. City of Rock Hill/Dissent Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
* Dissenting Opinions Black Harlan Stewart White
* Linked case(s):
* 236 Ark. 596 379 U.S. 306
Mr. Justice Stewart, dissenting.
The chief difference between these cases and Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, is that here federal rather than state legislation has intervened while the convictions were under review. As I understand the Court's opinion, it first asserts that, if these had been federal convictions, the passage of the Civil Rights Act would have abated them under principles of federal decisional law. It then proceeds to apply those asserted principles to these state convictions through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If I thought that Congress had provided that such nonfinal state convictions are to be abated, I would find no constitutional difficulty in joining the Court's disposition of these cases under the Supremacy Clause. But Congress was silent on the subject, and I am unable to subscribe to the Court's reasoning.
In Bell v. Maryland, we said that a State's abatement policy was for the State to determine. Arkansas and South Carolina might hold that this supervening federal legislation provides a compelling reason to abate these proceedings, but I can find nothing in the legislation or in the Constitution which requires these States to do so.
We found in Bell that the law of Maryland was "open and arguable" on the issue of abatement. The law of [p327] Arkansas and South Carolina is no clearer. Like Maryland, Arkansas has a saving statute similar to the federal counterpart. And like Maryland, South Carolina apparently has a policy favoring abatement when state criminal statutes are repealed while prosecutions are pending. See State v. Spencer, 177 S.C. 346, 181 S.E. 217.
For the reasons stated in the Court's opinion in Bell v. Maryland, I would vacate the judgments and remand the cases to the state courts for reconsideration in the light of the supervening federal legislation.
# Hamm v. City of Rock Hill/Dissent White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
* Dissenting Opinions Black Harlan Stewart White
* Linked case(s):
* 236 Ark. 596 379 U.S. 306
Mr. Justice White, dissenting.
Absent the Civil Rights Act there was, in my view, no constitutional infirmity in the state court convictions. Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 318 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Black). And if Congress had the power to abate these convictions I am confident it had no intent of exercising it by passing the new law. There is nothing but silence to indicate that Congress meant to void outstanding judgments of state courts. I would not, for several reasons, read so much into nothing as the Court attempts to do.
It is wrong to impute to the silence of Congress an unusual and unprecedented step which at the very least poses constitutional problems of some import. By the time the Act was passed, Bell v. Maryland, supra, had forcefully raised the whole question of the status of previous convictions after a change in the law. I cannot believe, with that case on the books, remitting the matter to the state courts as it did, Congress would have left unstated its intention to erase all state court trespass judgments then on appeal in the courts. Moreover, the common-law presumption of abatement was reversed by 1 U.S.C. § 109 (1958 ed.), which stands as the most relevant indicator of congressional intention in situations like this. Congressional silence in these circumstances [p328] seems to me to point to the conclusion exactly opposite to that reached by the Court.
Finally, had Congress intended to ratify massive disobedience to the law, so often attended by violence, I feel sure it would have said so in unmistakable language. The truth is that it is only judicial rhetoric to blame this result upon Congress. Given a discernable congressional decision, I would be happy to follow it, as it is our task to do, absent constitutional limitations. But without it we have another case. Whether persons or groups should engage in nonviolent disobedience to laws with which they disagree perhaps defies any categorial answer for the guidance of every individual in every circumstance. But whether a court should give it wholesale sanction is a wholly different question which calls for only one answer.
# Hamm v. City of Rock Hill

Under the doctrine of abatement, criminal prosecution is "abated" or dismissed if the criminal conduct is made lawful before the conviction becomes final. At issue in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964), was whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 abated state prosecutions for trespass against "sit-in" protesters. In a 5–4 decision the Court held that the 1964 law abated those prosecutions.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 306
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina
No. 2. Argued: October 12, 1964. --- Decided: December 14, 1964.

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Harlan
    Stewart
    White

## Linked case(s)

236 Ark. 596 379 U.S. 306
The petitioners, who are Negroes, were convicted for violations of state trespass statutes for participating in "sit-ins" at lunch counters of retail stores. It was conceded that the lunch-counter operations would probably come within the coverage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed subsequent to the convictions and the affirmances thereof in the state courts. Held:
1. The Act creates federal statutory rights which under the Supremacy Clause must prevail over any conflicting state laws. Pp. 310–312.
2. These convictions, being on direct review at the time the Act made the conduct no longer unlawful, must abate. Pp. 312–317.
(a) Had these been federal convictions they would have abated, Congress presumably having intended to avoid punishment no longer furthering a legislative purpose, and the general federal saving statute being inapplicable to a statute like this which substitutes a right for what was previously criminal. Pp. 312–314.
(b) Though these were state convictions their abatement is likewise required not only under the Supremacy Clause and because the pending convictions are contrary to the legislative purpose of the Act but also because abatement is a necessary part of every statute which repeals criminal legislation. Pp. 314–317.
Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioner in No. 2. Constance Baker Motley argued the cause for petitioners in No. 5. With them on the brief were James M. Nabrit III, Charles L. Black, Jr., Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Donald James Sampson, Willie T. Smith, Jr., Harold B. Anderson, Wiley A. Branton, William T. Coleman, Jr., and Marvin E. Frankel
[p307] Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for respondent in No. 2. With him on the brief was Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina.
Jack L. Lessenberry, Chief Assistant Attorney General of Arkansas, argued the cause for respondent in No. 5. With him on the brief was Bruce Bennett, Attorney General of Arkansas.
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
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
# Hamm v. City of Rock Hill/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
* Dissenting Opinions Black Harlan Stewart White
* Linked case(s):
* 236 Ark. 596 379 U.S. 306
Mr. Justice Douglas, whom Mr. Justice Goldberg joins, concurring.
Some of my Brethren raise constitutional doubts about the power of Congress to nullify the convictions of sit-in demonstrators for violation of state trespass laws prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My Brother Harlan observes that it is difficult to see, in the absence of any evidence in the legislative record of the Act, how "giving effect to past state trespass convictions would result in placing any burden on present interstate commerce," post, p. 325. I merely note here that, in joining the opinion of the Court, I am faced with no such difficulty. That is because, as my Brother Goldberg and I said in our respective concurring opinions in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, ante, pp. 241, 279, Congress has, in passing this Act, not merely sought to remove burdens from interstate commerce; it has also sought to protect and enforce the Fourteenth Amendment right to be free of discriminatory treatment, based on race, in places of public accommodation. It is certainly not difficult to see how Congress could appropriately conclude that all state interference with the exercise of this right should come to a halt on the passage of the Act, that the States should not be permitted to insist on punishing one whose only "crime" was assertion of a consti- [p318] tutional right, albeit prior to the enactment of the present legislation, and that this Court should not put its imprimatur on such state prosecutions, whenever they arose.
# Garrison

The earliest poem in this division was my youthful tribute to the great reformer when himself a young man he was first sounding his trumpet in Essex County. I close with the verses inscribed to him at the end of his earthly career, May 24, 1879. My poetical service in the cause of freedom is thus almost synchronous with his life of devotion to the same cause.
THE storm and peril overpast, The hounding hatred shamed and still, Go, soul of freedom! take at last The place which thou alone canst fill.
Confirm the lesson taught of old-- Life saved for self is lost, while they Who lose it in His service hold The lease of God's eternal day.
Not for thyself, but for the slave Thy words of thunder shook the world; No selfish griefs or hatred gave The strength wherewith thy bolts were hurled.
From lips that Sinai's trumpet blew We heard a tender under song; Thy very wrath from pity grew, From love of man thy hate of wrong.
Now past and present are as one; The life below is life above; Thy mortal years have but begun Thy immortality of love.
With somewhat of thy lofty faith We lay thy outworn garment by, Give death but what belongs to death, And life the life that cannot die!
Not for a soul like thine the calm Of selfish ease and joys of sense; But duty, more than crown or palm, Its own exceeding recompense.
Go up and on thy day well done, Its morning promise well fulfilled, Arise to triumphs yet unwon, To holier tasks that God has willed.
Go, leave behind thee all that mars The work below of man for man; With the white legions of the stars Do service such as angels can.
Wherever wrong shall right deny Or suffering spirits urge their plea, Be thine a voice to smite the lie, A hand to set the captive free!
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
# Garrison v. Cass County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
72 U.S. 823
Garrison v. Cass County
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from Supreme Court of the Territory of Nebraska.
The CHIEF JUSTICE 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
# Garrett v. Greenberg

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 898
ESTATE OF John S. GARRETT, Jr., deceased, Bankrupt, etc.
Messrs. Vincent P. McDevitt, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Messrs. Ernest Scott and Joseph S.C.onwell, Jr., both of Philadelphia, Pa., W. Edward Greenwood, of West Chester, Pa., and David Rosen, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

## 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
# Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 308
Garrett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
Argued: November 12, 1914. --- Decided: November 30, 1914
Messrs. John A. Pitts and H. N. Leech for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 309 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John B. Keeble for defendant in error.
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
# Garrison v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 286
Garrison v. California
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824.
Mr. Justice STEWART would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S., at 42, 87 S.Ct., at 837.

## 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
# Garrett v. Greenberg/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 898
ESTATE OF John S. GARRETT, Jr., deceased, Bankrupt, etc.
The motion for leave to file petition for rehearing is granted. The petition for rehearing is denied.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 286
Garrison v. California
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District.
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
# Garrison v. Cass County/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
72 U.S. 823
Garrison v. Cass County
The decree in this case was rendered on the 13th June, 1861. No appeal was prayed or allowed until the June Term, 1865. At that term, on motion of the defendants below, an appeal was allowed nunc pro turn, as of 13th June, 1861.
There is nothing in the record which warranted the making of this order; nor, if it could have been lawfully made, would it avail the defendant, for there was no citation to the appellees, and the record was not brought up at the next term of this court.
At most, it can only be regarded as an allowance of an appeal at the June Term, 1865, and no citation appears to have been issued since to the appellees, nor was there any equivalent notice, nor has there been any waiver.
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

## 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
# Hawaii v. Gordon/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 57
Hawaii v. Gordon
Argued: April 15, 1963. --- Decided: April 29, 1963
Section 5(e) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, 48 U.S.C. (Supp. II, 1960), pp. 1257-1261, provides that within five years from the date Hawaii is admitted to the Union federal agencies having control over land or properties retained by the United States under § 5(c) and (d) of the Act shall report to the President as to the 'continued need for such land or property, and if the President determines that the land or property is no longer needed by the United States it shall be conveyed to the State of Hawaii.' The President designated the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to perform his functions thereunder. The Director thereafter, pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op.Atty.Gen. (No. 4), concluded, and so advised federal agencies, that the lands referred to in § 5(e) do not include lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation or gift but are limited to lands which at one time belonged to Hawaii and were ceded to the United States or acquired in exchange therefor.
Hawaii filed this original action against the Director, under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, seeking to obtain an order requiring him to withdraw this advice to the federal agencies, determine whether a certain 203 acres of land in Hawaii acquired by the United States through condemnation was land or properties 'needed by the United States' and, if not needed, to convey this land to Hawaii. We have concluded that this is a suit against the United States and, absent its consent, cannot be maintained by the State. The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter. E.g., Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999 (1963); Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962); Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). Here the order requested would require the Director's official affirmative action, affect the public administration of government agencies and cause as well the disposition of property admittedly belonging to the United States. The complaint is therefore dismissed. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60, 26 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed. 935 (1906).
Dismissed.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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