OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# In re Simons

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 231
In re Simons
Argued: Dec. 10, 1918. --- Decided: June 3, 1918
Mr. Roger Foster, of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 231-234 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edgar T. Brackett, of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 235-237 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
# In re Skinner & Eddy Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 86
In re Skinner & Eddy Corporation
Argued on Return to Rule to Show Cause April 14, 1924.
Decided May 12, 1924.
Messrs. Louis Titus, of Washington, D. C., George Donworth, of Seattle, Wash., and J. Barrett Carter, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 87 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 88-90 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# In re Spencer (397 U.S. 817)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 817
In re Spencer (397 U.S. 817)
Argued: April 28, 1970. ---
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 254 La. 294, 223 So.2d 672.

## 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
# In re Spencer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
228 U.S. 652
In re Spencer
Argued: April 28, 1913. --- Decided: May 26, 1913
Messrs. M. C. Rhone, W. H. Spencer, and F. P. Cummings for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 653-655 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. N. M. Edwards, Max L. Mitchell, A. M. Hoagland, and Mr. John C. Bell, Attorney
[Argument of Counsel from page 655 intentionally omitted] General of Pennsylvania, for respondent.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# In re Shuttlesworth

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 35
In re Shuttlesworth
William M. Kunstler, for petitioner.
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
# In re Shuttlesworth/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 35
In re Shuttlesworth
Treating this application for habeas corpus as a petition for certiorari to review the denial by a judge of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of a certificate of probable cause for appeal (28 U.S.C. § 2253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253) from the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, cf. In re Burwell, 350 U.S. 521, 522, 76 S.Ct. 539, 100 L.Ed. 666, we grant it as such, vacate the order of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to hold the matter while petitioner pursues his state remedies (as indicated in the opinion of Judge Rives denying a certificate of probable cause), including an application for bail to state courts pending disposition of petitioner's application for state relief. In the event of failure to secure such relief, or to secure admission to bail pending such relief within five (5) days from the date of application for bail, petitioner may, upon appropriate showing, proceed on this application in the United States District Court which may then consider all state remedies exhausted and proceed to hear and determine the cause, including any application for bail pending that court's final disposition of the matter. The Clerk is directed to issue the judgment forthwith.
Order vacated and case remanded to the District 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
# Ioannou v. New York

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Ioannou v. New York."
* 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.
* Ioannou v. New York (371 U.S. 30)
* Ioannou v. New York (391 U.S. 604)
# Ioannou v. New York (371 U.S. 30)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 30
Ioannou v. New York
Sydney J. Schwartz, for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Paxton Blair, Sol. Gen., and Daniel M. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ioannou v. New York (391 U.S. 604)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 604
Ioannou v. New York
The motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is denied upon the representation of the Attorney General of New York that the movant may file a new application 'to withdraw the funds deposited with the New York City Treasurer' in the light of changed circumstances. See Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 88 S.Ct. 664, 19 L.Ed.2d 683; Goldstein v. Cox, 389 U.S. 581, 88 S.Ct. 694, 19 L.Ed.2d 781.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS.
Since the only changed circumstances concern the intervening decision of this Court in Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 88 S.Ct. 664, 19 L.Ed.2d 683, and since the rationale of that decision applies to custodial statutes such as New York has as well as to escheat statutes like Oregon's, I would dispose of the case here and now (either after or without oral argument) and not require petitioner to retravel once more the long, arduous, and expensive path from New York's surrogate court.
Mr. Justice HARLAN would deny unconditionally the motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing, substantially for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98, 99, 77 S.Ct. 652, 1 L.Ed.2d 683.
Mr. Justice FORTAS and Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

## 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
# Ioannou v. New York (371 U.S. 30)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 30
Ioannou v. New York
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.

## 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
# Ioannou v. New York (391 U.S. 604)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 604
Ioannou v. New York et al.
On Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Rehearing
No. 191, October Term, 1962. Argued: N/A --- Decided: June 3, 1968
371 U.S. 30, motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
Sydney J. Schwartz on the motion.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, in opposition.
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
# Inter caetera

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Inter caetera."
* 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.
* Inter caetera (March 13, 1456), papal bull by Pope Callixtus III
* Inter caetera (May 3, 1493), papal bull by Pope Alexander VI
* Inter caetera (May 4, 1493), papal bull by Pope Alexander VI
* Inter caetera (January 1, 1748), encyclical by Benedict XIV
# Inter-Island Steam Navigation Company v. Ward

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 1
Inter-Island Steam Navigation Company v. Ward
Argued: October 9, 1916. --- Decided: October 30, 1916
Mr. E. A. Douthitt, for defendant in error.
Mr. W. O. Smith for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Alexander Britton, in behalf of
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
# Interchange

"The oriole sang in the apple-tree"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1902), "Interchange" in Harper's Monthly Magazine (November 1902).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1904), "Interchange" in Mine and Thine (1904).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), "Interchange" in Poems I.

## References

* ↑ View this version at Google Books.
# Interest and Effort in Education

Layout 2
Riverside Educational Monographs
EDITED BY HENRY SUZZALO
PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
INTEREST AND EFFORT
IN EDUCATION
by
JOHN DEWEY
PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO The Riverside Press Cambridge
COPYRIGHT, 1913, BY JOHN DEWEY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The opening paragraphs of the following essay follow closely the author's monograph on Interest as Related to Will in the First Year Book of the National Herbart Society. The author is indebted to the Society for permission to use this material.
The Riverside Press
CAMBRIDGE · MASSACHUSETTS
U . S . A
CONTENTS
| | Editor's Introduction | v |
| I. | Unified versus Divided Activity | 1 |
| II. | Interest as Direct and Indirect | 16 |
| III. | Effort, Thinking, and Motivation | 46 |
| IV. | Types of Educative Interest | 65 |
| V. | The Place of Interest in the Theory of Education | 90 |
| | Outline | 97 |
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 1952, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 71 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
# Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Messina

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 395
Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Messina
Argued: February 23, 1916. --- Decided: March 6, 1916
Messrs. R. V. Fletcher, Blewett Lee, and Edward Mayes for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Harry Peyton and William H. Watkins for defendant in error.
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
# Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Mulberry Hill Coal Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
238 U.S. 275
Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Mulberry Hill Coal Company
Argued: and submitted January 14, 1915. --- Decided: June 14, 1915
Messrs. Blewett Lee, Edward C. Kramer, John G. Drennan, and Walter S. Horton for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Frederick B. Merrills for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
385 U.S. 57
Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company
Argued: Oct. 11, 1966. --- Decided: Nov 14, 1966
William J. O'Brien, Jr., Chicago, Ill., and Richard A. Posner, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Theodore E. Desch, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# International review of criminal policy - Nos. 43 and 44/The need for global action

indexes: International review of criminal policy - Nos. 43 and 44
C. The need for global action
12. Despite these international efforts, much remains to be accomplished in order to achieve international cooperation. While much of the international work has so far been centered in western European and OECD countries, the potential extent of computer crime is as broad as the extent of the international telecommunication systems. All regions of the world must become involved in order to prevent this new form of criminality.
13. Ensuring the integrity of computer systems is a challenge facing both developed and developing countries. It is predicted that within the next decade, it will be necessary for developing nations to experience significant technological growth in order to become economically self-sufficient and more competitive in world markets. As dependence on computer technology grows in all nations, it will be crucial to ensure that the rate of technological dependence does not outstrip the rate at which the corresponding social, legal and political frameworks are developing. It is important to plan for security and crime prevention at the same time that computer technology is being implemented.
14. The participation of both developed and developing nations in international computer-crime initiatives is an encouraging trend. For example, the three associated conferences on computer crime at Würzburg in October 1992 were attended by delegates from Africa, Asia, eastern and western Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and North America. An adequate response to computer crime requires that both developed and developing nations should encourage regional and international organizations to examine the issue and promote crime prevention programs on a national level.
15. This strategy is necessary, both immediately and in the long term, to ensure international cooperation and to foster the political will to create a secure information community and the universal criminalization of computer crime.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# International review of criminal policy - Nos. 43 and 44/Transfer of proceedings in criminal matters

indexes: International review of criminal policy - Nos. 43 and 44

## F. Transfer of proceedings in criminal matters

279. As mentioned above, the exercise of jurisdiction in transborder cases involves the possibility of competing claims, which may eventually lead to multiple prosecutions and bring about friction between States. The technique of transfer of proceedings offers a rather effective mechanism to solve this problem in a harmonious way. By creating agreements by which one State can waive its jurisdiction rights on favour of another State, conflicting claims can be resolved. The reason for such an initiative, beyond avoidance of jurisdictional conflicts, are the effective administration of penal justice, the interests of the victim and the reintegration of the offender into society. In case where multiple proceedings are pending in two or more States, a provision can be made for compulsory consultation to reach a settlement.
280. Few conventions of this type are force today. The European Convention for the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (1972), for example received a limited number of ratifications. However, the United Nations Model Treaty on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (General Assembly resolution 45/118, annex) represents an excellent basis for more effective international cooperation and deserves greater attention. The basic issues, e.g. the issues of double criminality and non bis in idem, remain similar to those in the other cooperation techniques, but again, any problems can be overcome. In the interests of the administration of criminal justice, which includes effective truth-finding and locating the most important or best items of evidence, agreements in this field may very well solve recurring, conflicting claims of jurisdiction while serving the interests of efficiency.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# International review of criminal policy - Nos. 43 and 44/The international problem

indexes: International review of criminal policy - Nos. 43 and 44
A. The international problem
5. Laws, criminal justice systems and international cooperation have not kept pace with technological change. Only a few countries have adequate laws to address the problem, and of these, not one has resolved all of the legal, enforcement and prevention problems.
6. When the issue is elevated to the international scene, the problems and inadequacies are magnified. Computer crime is a new form of transnational crime and effectively addressing it requires concerted international cooperation. This can only happen, however, if there is a common framework for understanding what the problem is and what solutions there may be.
7. Some of the problems surrounding international cooperation in the area of computer crime and criminal law can be summarized as follows:
* The lack of global consensus on what types of conduct should constitute a computer-related crime;
* The lack of global consensus on the legal definition of criminal conduct;
* The lack of expertise on the part of police, prosecutors and the courts in this field;
* The inadequacy of legal powers for investigation and access to computer systems, including the inapplicability of seizure powers to intangibles such as computerized data;
* The lack of harmonization between the different national procedural laws concerning the investigation of computer-related crimes;
* The transnational character of many computer crimes;
* The lack of extradition and mutual assistance treaties and of synchronized law enforcement mechanisms that would permit international cooperation, or the inability of existing treaties to take into account the dynamics and special requirements of computer-crime investigation.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This edition was printed circa 1900, although no date is given explicitly in the volume.
JANE EYRE.
TO
W. M. THACKERAY, ESQ.
This Work
IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED
BY
THE AUTHOR.
Jane Eyre.
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
By CURRER BELL,
AUTHOR OF "SHIRLEY," "VILLETTE," "THE PROFESSOR," &c., &c.
LONDON:
W. NICHOLSON & SONS, Limited,
26, Paternoster Square, E.C.,
AND ALBION WORKS, WAKEFIELD.
* Preface
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Chapter XXVI
* Chapter XXVII
* Chapter XXVIII
* Chapter XXIX
* Chapter XXX
* Chapter XXXI
* Chapter XXXII
* Chapter XXXIII
* Chapter XXXIV
* Chapter XXXV
* Chapter XXXVI
* Chapter XXXVII
* Chapter XXXVIII
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
# Keifer Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 381
Keifer Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Argued: Jan. 31 to Feb. 1, 1939. --- Decided: Feb 27, 1939
Messrs. Ernest B. Perry and Robert Van Pelt, both of Lincoln, Neb., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 382 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Peyton R. Evans, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 383-387 intentionally omitted]
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