OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Richardson v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 34
Richardson v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
John L. Richardson, pro se.
Solicitor General Marshall, for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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
# Richardson v. Wright
## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Brennan
Supreme Court of the United States
405 U.S. 208
Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Wright et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 70-161 Argued: January 13, 1972 --- Decided: February 24, 1972
In light of the adoption of new regulations providing that a recipient of disability benefit payments pursuant to § 225 of the Social Security Act be given notice of a proposed suspension of payments and the reasons therefor, plus an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence, the judgment is vacated to permit reprocessing, under the new regulations, of the disputed determinations.
321 F. Supp. 383, vacated and remanded.
Assistant Attorney General Gray argued the cause for appellant in No. 70-161 and for appellee in No. 70-5211. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Wilmot R. Hastings, Edwin H. Yourman, and Paul Merlin.
Robert N. Sayler argued the cause and filed briefs for appellees in No. 70-161 and for appellants in No. 70-5211.
Briefs of amici curiae in both cases were filed by Thomas L. Fike for the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County; by David H. Marlin and Jonathan A. Weiss for the National Council of Senior Citizens; and by Albert C. Neimeth for Luella H. Mills et al. Bernard P. Becker and Harvey N. Schmidt filed a brief for Stella Van Guilder et al. as amici curiae.

## Notes

* ↑ Together with No. 70-5211, Wright et al. v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, also on appeal from the same court.
# Richardson v. Shaw

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 365
Richardson v. Shaw
Argued: January 17, 20, 1908. --- Decided: April 6, 1908
Messrs. John Brooks Leavitt and Henry Arnold Richardson for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 366-368 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Louis Marshall, E. S. Theall, Francis Fitch, and John A. L. Campbell for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 368 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
# Sanders of the River

Book 1 in the African (Sanders) Series. A best seller, in 1935; adapted into a film with the same name, starring Paul Robeson. And, also from Wikipedia comes this titbit: Critic David Pringle noted in 1987, "The Sanders Books are not frequently reprinted nowadays, perhaps because of their overt racism".

## Contents

* I.—THE EDUCATION OF THE KING
* II.—KEEPERS OF THE STONE
* III.—BOSAMBO OF MONROVIA
* IV.—THE DROWSY ONE
* V.—THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
* VI.—THE DANCING STONES
* VII.—THE FOREST OF HAPPY DREAMS
* VIII.—THE AKASAVAS
* IX.—THE WOOD OF DEVILS
* X.—THE LOVES OF M'LINO
* XI.—THE WITCH-DOCTOR
* XII.—THE LONELY ONE
* XIII.—THE SEER
* CHAPTER THE LAST—DOGS OF WAR
# Sandberg v. McDonald

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    McKenna
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 185
Sandberg v. McDonald
Argued: Nov. 5, 1918. --- Decided: Dec 23, 1918
Messrs. Alexander T. Howard, of Mobile, Ala., and
[Argument of Counsel from page 186 intentionally omitted]
W. J. Waguespack, of New Orleans, La., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 187-188 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Palmer Pillans, of Mobile, Ala., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 188-189 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Brown, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 189-190 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
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 16/Hexagram 4

IV. The Măng Hexagram.
1. The first line, divided, (has respect to) the dispelling of ignorance. It will be advantageous to use punishment (for that purpose), and to remove the shackles (from the mind). But going on in that way (of punishment) will give occasion for regret.
2. The second line, undivided, (shows its subject) exercising forbearance with the ignorant, in which there will be good fortune; and admitting (even the goodness of women, which will also be fortunate. (He may be described also as) a son able to (sustain the burden of) his family.
3. The third line, divided, (seems to say) that one should not marry a woman whose emblem it might be, for that, when she sees a man of wealth, she will not keep her person from him, and in no wise will advantage come from her.
4. The fourth line, divided, (shows its subject as if) bound in chains of ignorance. There will be occasion for regret.
5. The fifth line, divided, shows its subject as a simple lad without experience. There will be good fortune.
6. In the topmost line, undivided, we see one smiting the ignorant (youth). But no advantage ​will come from doing him an injury. Advantage would come from warding off injury from him.
The subject of the first line, weak, and at the bottom of the figure, is in the grossest ignorance. Let him be punished. If punishment avail to loosen the shackles and manacles from the mind, well; if not, and punishment be persevered with, the effect will be had.
On the subject of the second line, strong, and in the central place, devolves the task of enlightening the ignorant; and we have him discharging it with forbearance and humility. In proof of his generosity, it is said that 'he receives,' or learns from, even weak and ignorant women. He appears also as 'a son' taking the place of his father.
The third line is weak, and occupies an odd place belonging properly to an undivided line; nor is its place in the centre. All these things give the subject of it so bad a character.
The fourth line is far from both the second and sixth, and can get no help from its correlate,—the first line, weak as itself. What good can be done with or by the subject of it?
The fifth line is in the place of honour, and has for its correlate the strong line in the second place. Being weak in itself, it is taken as the symbol of a simple lad, willing to be taught.
The topmost line is strong, and in the highest place. It is natural, but unwise, in him to use violence in carrying on his educational measures. A better course is suggested to him.
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 16/Plate 1

PLATE I.
The Hexagrams, in the order in which they appear in the Yî, and were arranged by king Wăn.
| 8 ䷇ pî | 7 ䷆ sze | 6 ䷅ sung | 5 ䷄ hsü | 4 ䷃ măng | 3 ䷂ kun | 2 ䷁ khwăn | 1 ䷀ khien |
| 16 ䷏ yü | 15 ䷎ khien | 14 ䷍ tâ yû | 13 ䷌ thung zăn | 12 ䷋ phî | 11 ䷊ thâi | 10 ䷉ lî | 9 ䷈ hsiâo khû |
| 24 ䷗ fû | 23 ䷖ po | 22 ䷕ pî | 21 ䷔ shih ho | 20 ䷓ kwân | 19 ䷒ lin | 18 ䷑ kû | 17 ䷐ sui |
| 32 ䷟ hăng | 31 ䷞ hsien | 30 ䷝ lî | 29 ䷜ khan | 28 ䷛ tâ kwo | 27 ䷚ î | 26 ䷙ tâ khû | 25 ䷘ wû wang |
| 40 ䷧ kieh | 39 ䷦ kien | 38 ䷥ khwei | 37 ䷤ kia zăn | 36 ䷣ ming î | 35 ䷢ zin | 34 ䷡ tâ kwang | 33 ䷠ thun |
| 48 ䷯ zing | 47 ䷮ khwăn | 46 ䷭ shăng | 45 ䷬ zhui | 44 ䷫ kâu | 43 ䷪ kwâi | 42 ䷩ yî | 41 ䷻ sun |
| 56 ䷷ lü | 55 ䷶ făng | 54 ䷵ kwei mei | 53 ䷴ kien | 52 ䷳ kăn | 51 ䷲ kăn | 50 ䷱ ting | 49 ䷰ ko |
| 64 ䷿ wei zî | 63 ䷾ kî zî | 62 ䷽ hsiâo kwo | 61 ䷼ kung fû | 60 ䷻ kieh | 59 ䷺ hwân | 58 ䷹ tui | 57 ䷸ sun |
# Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony ATV Publishing, LLC

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, news, Wikidata item.
* 477 F.3d 383
* ROGER MILLER MUSIC, INC., and MARY A. MILLER, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
* v.
* SONY/ATV PUBLISHING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
* No. 05-6824, 05-6880
* United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
* Argued: November 28, 2006
* Decided and Filed: February 13, 2007
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 04-01132—William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge.

## Counsel

ARGUED: W. Robert Thompson, KAY, GRIFFIN, ENKEMA & BROTHERS, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Barry I. Slotnick, LOEB & LOEB, New York, New York, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: W. Robert Thompson, John J. Griffin, Jr., Caroline M. Gobbell, KAY, GRIFFIN, ENKEMA & BROTHERS, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Barry I. Slotnick, LOEB & LOEB, New York, New York, for Appellee.
Before: COLE and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; BREEN, District Judge.

### Footnotes

* ↑ The Honorable J. Daniel Breen, United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
# Rogers' Estate v. Helvering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
320 U.S. 410
Rogers' Estate v. Helvering
Argued: Nov. 18, 19, 1943. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1943
Mr. John W. Drye, Jr., of New York City, for petitioner.
Hon. Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
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
# Seven Cases v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 510
Seven Cases v. United States
Argued: December 2, 1915. --- Decided: January 10, 1916
Messrs. Daniel W. Baker and Francis D. Weaver for plaintiff in error.
Assistant Attorney General Underwood for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 511 intentionally omitted]
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
# Seven Drunken Nights

The Seven Drunken Nights is a humorous Irish folk song most famously performed by The Dubliners Warning: template has been deprecated.
* Seven Drunken Nights (Irish)
* Four Nights Drunk (American version)
# Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), was a decision by the w:Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress' power under the commerce clause. Notably, this was a unanimous decision that declared unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act, a main component of President Roosevelt's New Deal. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 495
Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States
Argued: May 2, 3, 1935. --- Decided: May 27, 1935
Phrase 'unfair methods of competition' within Federal Trade Commission Act has broader meaning than common-law term 'unfair competition,' but its scope cannot be precisely defined, and what constitutes 'unfair methods of competition' must be determined in particular instances, upon evidence, in light of particular competitive conditions and of what is found to be a specific and substantial public interest (Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 (15 USCA § 45)).
[Syllabus from pages 495-500 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph Heller, Frederick H. Wood, and Jacob E. Heller, all of New York City, for petitioner A.L.A. Schechter Corporation and others.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 500-508 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Messrs. Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., and Donald R. Richberg, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 508-519 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 667
Schaumburg v. United States
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484. Claims for credit can be used in suits against persons indebted to the United States to reduce or extinguish the debt, but not as the foundation of a judgment against the government. In the present case the court instructed the jury as matter of law that the plaintiff in error, from July 1, 1836, until March 24, 1845, was in the military service of the United States as a first lieutenant of dragoons or cavalry; and that he was entitled as such to credit for the pay and emoluments that accrued during that period, and this was admitted to exceed the debt sued on by the United States. The jury thereupon brought in a verdict for the defendant. Had the jury gone further and struck the balance that would be due from the United States, no judgment could have been rendered for it. Any verdict, therefore, beyond the one actually given would have been fruitless. The court itself decided that the plaintiff in error was entitled to his pay and emoluments from July 1, 1836, to March 24, 1845. While sometimes the jury have been permitted to certify to a balance they find to be due from the government in cases of this kind, and under some circumstances it may be proper they should do so, a refusal of the court to direct that it be done cannot be reviewed here.
Judgment affirmed.

## 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
# Scheefer v. Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 249
Scheefer v. Railroad Company
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George A. King, with whom were Mr. Charles King and Mr. John B. Sanborn, for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Linden Kent, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (537 U.S. 393)/Concurrence Ginsburg

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Ginsburg
* Dissenting Opinion Stevens
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer joins, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion, persuaded that the Seventh Circuit's decision accords undue breadth to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act). As Justice Stevens recognizes, "Congress has enacted specific legislation responsive to the concerns that gave rise to these cases." Post, at 417 (dissenting opinion). In the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. §248, Congress crafted a statutory response that homes in on the problem of criminal activity at health care facilities. See ante, at 404–405, and n. 9 (noting petitioners' acknowledgment that at least some of the protesters' conduct was criminal, and observing that "[t]he crime of coercion [a separate, and lesser, offense than extortion] more accurately describes the nature of petitioners' actions"). Thus, the principal effect of a decision against petitioners here would have been on other cases pursued under RICO.
RICO, which empowers both prosecutors and private enforcers, imposes severe criminal penalties and hefty civil lia- [p. 412] bility on those engaged in conduct within the Act's compass. See, e.g., §1963(a) (up to 20 years' imprisonment and wide-ranging forfeiture for a single criminal violation); §1964(a) (broad civil injunctive relief); §1964(c) (treble damages and attorneys' fees for private plaintiffs). It has already "evolv[ed] into something quite different from the original conception of its enactors," Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985), warranting "concern[s] over the consequences of an unbridled reading of the statute," id., at 481. The Court is rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO's domain further by endorsing the expansive definition of "extortion" adopted by the Seventh Circuit.

#### Notes

* ↑ . At oral argument, the Government was asked: "[D]o you agree that your interpretation would have been applicable to the civil rights sit-ins?" Tr. of Oral Arg. 25. The Solicitor General responded: "Under some circumstances, it could have if illegal force or threats were used to prevent a business from operating."
Ibid.
# Scheaf v. U.S. 762 F.2d 1019 (1985)

Scheaf v. U.S., (1985), 762 F.2d 1019 (Table)
762 F.2d 1019 (Table)
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Scheaf v. U.S. 84-1735 5/14/85
N.D.Cal.

## AFFIRMED

C.A.9 1985. Scheaf v. U.S. 762 F.2d 1019 (Table) END OF DOCUMENT
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
# Royal Naval Biography/Crispin, Benjamin

Layout 2
BENJAMIN CRISPIN, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1813.]
{{sc|Entered} the navy previous to the Russian armament, in 1791; and was a midshipman of the Orion 74, Captain John Thomas Duckworth, at the defeat of the French fleet by Earl Howe, June 1, 1794. He afterwards joined the Queen 98, bearing the flag of Sir Alan (afterwards Lord) Gardner, in which ship he witnessed the capture of three two-deckers, off l’Orient, June, 23, 1795. His promotion to the rank of lieutenant took place in December, 1796.
From this period, we find no particular mention of Mr. Crispin until November 4, 1805, when, as first lieutenant of the Caesar 80, Captain Sir Richard J. Strachan, he assisted at the capture of Rear-admiral Dumanoir le Pelley; for which he was made commander on the 24th of the following month.
Captain Crispin’s subsequent appointments were to the Leveret, Kite, Swallow, and Scout, brigs; which latter vessel he continued to command until his advancement to post rank, December 4, 1813.
This officer married in April, 1797, and has a very large family. One of his sons is a naval lieutenant, another holds a commission in the army.
* ↑ See Vol. I. pp. 246 and 575.
* ↑ See id. p. 289.
# Royal Naval Biography/Creagh, James

Layout 2
JAMES CREAGH, Esq. [Commander.]
Passed his examination in June 1816; served as midshipman at the battle of Algiers, and obtained his first commission on the 16th Sept. in the same year. He was made a commander Mar. 31st, 1827.
# Royal Naval Biography/Cririe, John

Layout 2
JOHN CRIRIE, Esq. [Commander.]
Served with considerable credit under Captain (now Commodore) Robert Barrie. His first commission bears date Nov. 2d, 1809; at which period he had but recently passed his examination for lieutenant. On the 29th June, 1812, he was appointed to the Narcissus frigate. Captain John H. Lumley, On the 24th Nov. following, he commanded the boats of that ship at the capture of the American privateer Joseph and Mary, of four guns and seventy-three men, between the islands of Cuba and St. Domingo, on which occasion he had one man killed and another wounded. On the 12th June, 1813, the boats, again under his command, brought out from York river, in the Chesapeake, the United States’ revenue cruiser Surveyor, of six guns and twenty-five men, of whom five were wounded. In this affair three of his men were killed, and himself, a marine officer (Patrick Savage), and four men wounded. He continued to serve under Captain Lundey until Oct. 1814; and obtained the rank of commander on the 27th May, 1825.
# Royal Naval Biography/Creyke, Richard

Layout 2
RICHARD CREYKE, Esq Governor of the Royal Naval Hospital, and Resident Commissioner of the Victualling, at Plymouth. [Retired Captain.]
In 1764, we find this officer accompanying the late Hon. John Byron on a voyage round the world. During the American war, he commanded the Otter of 14 guns; was very actively employed under the orders of Commodore Sir George Collier, and assisted at the capture and destruction of the towns of Norfolk, Suffolk, Portsmouth, Gosport, and others of less note in the vicinity of Elizabeth River; the strong posts of Stoney Point, Fort la Fayette, and Varplanks, up the North River; and the towns of Newhaven, Fairfield, Norwalk, and Greenfield, on the Connecticut shore; together with an immense quantity of shipping, merchandise, provisions, and naval and military stores. He also accompanied Sir George Collier to the Penobscot river, where nineteen sail of American armed vessels, and upwards of twenty transports, were either taken or destroyed, in Aug. 1779. His post commission bears date Dec. 17, 1782; and his ​appointment to be Governor of Plymouth Hospital, July 15, 1795. He has a son in holy orders, married to Sarah, daughter of the late Colonel Hotham, of York.
* ↑ See note at p. 1.
* ↑ See Nav. Chron. Vol. 32, p. 265, et seq.
* ↑ For the better regulation of the Royal Naval Hospitals, in the year 1795, Governors were appointed to each. To those at Haslar and Plymouth, a Post-Captain, with a salary of 500l., and 75l. for house, coals, and candles; three Lieutenants under them, whose salaries were fixed at 130l. per annum. By a recent regulation, the office of Governor has merged in that of a Resident Commissioner of the Victualling, in whom are united the superintendance of the victualling department of the navy, and the control of the hospital.
# Royal Naval Biography/Creyke, Richard (b)

Layout 2
RICHARD CREYKE, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1814.]
Was made lieutenant Nov. 7, 1806; advanced to the rank of commander Mar. 17, 1812; and posted, while commanding the Zephyr sloop, Dec. 19, 1814.
Agents.– Messrs. Maude & Co.
# Royal Naval Biography/Crichton, James Augustus Seymour

Layout 2
JAMES AUGUSTUS SEYMOUR CRICHTON, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant in 1799; promoted to the rank of commander, Aug. 12th, 1812; and subsequently appointed as follows: – Aug. 10th, 1813, to the AEolus 32, armed en flûte; – Sept. 3d, 1814, to the Bustard; – and, Nov. 16th following, to the Ringdove, sloops.
# Royal Naval Biography/Crispo, John

Layout 2
JOHN CRISPO, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1810.]
Received his first commission at the close of the Spanish armament, 1790; and subsequently commanded the Alert schooner, employed conveying the mails to and from New York and Halifax, which vessel he lost on St. John’s, now ​Prince Edward’s, Island, when returning from Quebec to Nova Scotia. In Aug. 1796, wo find him commanding the Telemachus hired cutter, on the Channel station, where he captured la Margueritta and le Requin, French privateers: the former of 4 guns and 48 men; the latter armed with swivels, and carrying 22 men. His promotion to the rank of Commander took place early in 1707. During the latter part of the revolutionary war, he was actively employed in command of the Resource troopship.
Captain Crispo’s last appointment was, about May 1808, to the Little Belt, of 18 guns; in which sloop he sailed for the West Indies, June 22, 1809. His post commission bears date, Oct. 21, 1810.
Agent.– John Copland, Esq.