OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Green jobs are a way to aid the middle class

Printed in the Philadelphia Inquirer on 27 February 2009.
Today, in Philadelphia, the White House Task Force on Middle Class Families is holding its inaugural meeting. Our charge is to assess current polices and develop new ones aimed at helping the middle class, the economic engine of this country.
The economic-recovery package that President Obama signed into law last week contains more than $20 billion for investment in a cleaner, greener economy, including $500 million for green job training. The task force's first order of business is to evaluate how investing in green jobs will help build a strong middle class.
So what exactly are "green jobs"? They provide products and services that use renewable energy resources, reduce pollution, and conserve energy and natural resources.
Investing in green jobs also means keeping up with the modern economy. At a time when good jobs at good wages are harder and harder to come by, we must find new, innovative opportunities.
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, green jobs pay 10 to 20 percent more than other jobs. They also are more likely to be union jobs. Building a new power grid, manufacturing solar panels, weatherizing homes and office buildings, and renovating schools are just a few of the ways to create high-quality green jobs that strengthen the foundation of this country.
More green jobs can also mean more money in consumers' pocketbooks at the end of the month. They can reduce your electric and heating bills, leaving you more disposable income for other things.
Right here in Philadelphia, for example, there are 400,000 rowhouses that could be weatherized and made more energy-efficient. Just doing that would lower household energy consumption by 20 to 40 percent, saving families hundreds of dollars a year.
Fortunately, as we will stress in our meeting here today, Mayor Nutter, Gov. Rendell, and other state and city officials across the nation are ready to help us build a greener economy. Philadelphia, for example, is working with its unions, universities, and community colleges to impart green skills to workers from all walks of life. The city is also proposing a new public authority to support large-scale green investment, especially in weatherization, building retrofits, and infrastructure.
We're excited to be in Philadelphia promoting an idea that has so many benefits. We're starting to make the investments needed to leave a cleaner world to our children while also creating good jobs right now. When you're creating green jobs, you're doing well by doing good.
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
# Handy Harman v. Burnet

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 136
Handy Harman v. Burnet
Argued: Oct. 19, 1931. --- Decided: Nov 23, 1931
Mr. William C. Breed, of New York City, for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Hands Up

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hands Up."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* Hands Up! in the World of Crime (1906), a book by Clifton Rodman Wooldridge
* Hands Up! (1926), a war-comedy silent film directed by Clarence G. Badger
# Handy v. Delaware Trust Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 352
Handy v. Delaware Trust Company
Argued: Feb. 26, 1932. --- Decided: March 21, 1932
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for handy.
Mr. James H. Hughes, Jr., of Wilmington, Del., for Delaware Trust Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 352-354 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Handy v. Delaware Trust Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
285 U.S. 352
Handy v. Delaware Trust Company
Argued: Feb. 26, 1932. --- Decided: March 21, 1932
This case, like No. 514, Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S.C.t. 358, 76 L. Ed. -, is here on a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The question submitted is:
'Does the second sentence of section 302 (c) of the revenue act of 1926 violate the dueprocess clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States?' In this case, as in No. 514, just decided, the decedent, within two years prior to his death, had made transfers inter vivos without consideration which were complete and irrevocable. The Commissioner included the value of the property so transferred in the value of the gross estate, and assessed a death transfer tax accordingly. Following a claim for refund and its rejection, the executor brought this action to recover the amount of the tax attributable to such inclusion. The trial court found that in fact none of the transfers had been made in contemplation of death, and rendered judgment for the executor for the amount claimed, on the ground that section 302(c) 26 USCA § 1094(c) violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Our decision in No. 514 requires an affirmative answer to the question submitted.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# Fontain v. Ravenel

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 369
Fontain v. Ravenel
THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
It was a bill filed by Fontain, as administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of Frederick Kohne, deceased, against Ravenel, one of the executors of Mrs. Kohne, the widow of the deceased Frederick. The object of the bill was to recover from the defendant certain sums of money which came into the hands of the widow, as executrix of her husband, for the purpose of applying them to some charitable bequests made in the will of Frederick Kohne. These are stated, as well as the other circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the court, and need not be repeated.
The circuit court dismissed the bill, and the complainant appealed to this court.
The case was argued, in print, by Mr. Hopper and Mr. Meredith, for the appellant, and by Mr. Gerhard and Mr. Pettigru, (with whom was Mr. Whaley, for the residuary legatee of Mrs. Kohne,) for the appellee.
The following were the points and authorities relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, in their original brief. An elaborate reply was filed by the counsel for the appellee, and then a rejoinder by the appellant's counsel. The reporter feels it difficult, with this quantity of matter, to present a fair view of the arguments without protracting the report to an unreasonable length.
Points and authorities for appellant.
As to domicile. An intention to make a place his home, will determine the domicile. Grier v. O'Daniel, 1 Binn.; see spinion of Judge Rush, in a note, p. 351.
If the surviving executrix has rightfully distributed among the next of kin, nothing more is to be said. If not, the administratrix cum testamento annexo, is entitled. Row v. Dawson, 1 Ves. 331; Ferran's Estate, 1 Ashmead, 319; Marshall v. Hoff, 1 Watts, 440; Act, 1834; Executors and Administrators, Dunlap's Penn. Digest, 524. The property here is held to abide the event of this suit.
The right of the administrator de bonis non is exclusive. Commonwealth v. Strohecker, opinion of Kennedy, J., 9 Watts, 480.

## 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
# Fontaine v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 593
Fontaine v. California
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District
No. 854, Misc. Argued: April 8, 1968 --- Decided: May 20, 1968
Petitioner was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence of selling marijuana to an informer, who disappeared during the period the State delayed bringing the case to trial. The District Court of Appeal (on the basis of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), decided after petitioner's trial) held that the prosecutor's comments on petitioner's failure to testify and the trial court's instruction that the jury could draw adverse inferences from petitioner's silence violated petitioner's privilege against self-incrimination but that the error was harmless. The State Supreme Court denied review. Following this Court's remand of the case in the light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the Court of Appeal reinstated its former opinion but recited that the constitutional error was harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Held: In the absence of testimony of the informer supporting the State's version of disputed issues, the State has not met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous comments of the prosecutor and the trial judge's instruction did not contribute to the petitioner's conviction. Chapman v. California, supra, at 24, 25-26.
Certiorari granted; 252 Cal. App. 2d 73, 60 Cal Rptr. 325, reversed.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Derald E. Granberg and Louise H. Renne, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
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
# Fong v. Backus

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 1
Fong v. Backus
Argued: April 5 and 6, 1916. --- Decided: April 17, 1916
Messrs. Jackson H. Ralston and William E. Richardson for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Wallace for appellee.
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
# Fonk v. Town of Yorkville

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 58
Fonk v. Town of Yorkville
Mr. Wm. J. P. Aberg, for appellants.
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
# Fong Yue Ting v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
149 U.S. 698
Fong Yue Ting v. United States

## 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
# Fonk v. Town of Yorkville/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
358 U.S. 58
Fonk v. Town of Yorkville
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## 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
# Hanger v. Abbott

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 532
Hanger v. Abbott
73 U.S. 532
18 L.Ed. 939
6 Wall. 532
HANGER
v.
ABBOTT.
December Ternm, 1867
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
J. & E. Abbott, of New Hampshire, sued Hanger, of Arkansas, in assumpsit. The latter pleaded the statute of limitations of Arkansas, which limits such action to three years The former replied the rebellion, which broke out after the cause of action accrued, and closed for more than three years all lawful courts. On demurrer, and judgment against it, and error to this court, the question here was, simply, whether the time during which the courts in Arkansas were closed on account of the rebellion, was to be excluded from the computation of time fixed by the Arkansas statute of limitations within which suits on contracts were to be brought, there being no exception by the terms of the statute itself for any such case.
Mr. Reverdy Johnson, for the plaintiff in error, cited Alabama v. Dalton in this court; Mr. S.C.. Eastman, contra, placed the case on general principles of law, and on an act of Congress of June 11th, 1864, ch. cxviii.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 9 Howard, 522.
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
# Hanks Dental Association v. International Tooth Crown Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
194 U.S. 303
Hanks Dental Association v. International Tooth Crown Company
Argued: and submitted April 26, 1904. --- Decided: May 16, 1904
Messrs. The certificate in this case is as follows:
'This cause comes here upon a writ of error for the review of the judgment of the circuit court for the southern district of New York, entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the defendant in error, The International Tooth Crown Company, sustaining the validity of a patent, and awarding damages for infringement. Upon examination of the record it appears that the sole evidence of infringement was found in the deposition of the president of the Hanks Dental Association, the plaintiff in error, taken pursuant to an order of the circuit court under §§ 870 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of New York, the defendant in error contending the examination of a party before trial, if permitted by the law of the state, is authorized by act of Congress of March 9, 1892. 27 Stat. at L. 7, chap. 14 (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 664).
'The taking of the deposition was objected to at every stage, and when offered in evidence at the trial it was again duly objected to, and to its reception the plaintiff in error duly excepted.
'Whether this practice is warranted or not is the question upon which we desire the instructions of the Supreme Court.
'Question Certified.
'Upon the facts above set out the question of law concerning which the court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court is:
'Was the order of the circuit court directing the president of the Hanks Dental Association, the defendant in that court, to appear before a master or commissioner appointed pursuant to the provisions of §§ 870 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of New York, valid and authorized under the act of March 9, 1892?' Philip B. Adams, Charles K. Offield, and Charles C. Linthicum for the Hanks Dental Association.
Mr. Walter D. Edmonds for the International Tooth Crown Company.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller 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
# Hanley v. Donoghue

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 1
Hanley v. Donoghue
Argued: December 14, 1885. ---
F.
This was an action brought by Michael Hanley and William F. Welch against Charles Donoghue in the circuit court for Baltimore county in the state of Maryland upon a judgment for $2,000 recovered by the plaintiffs on June 4, 1877, in an action of covenant against the defendant, Charles Donoghue, together with one John Donoghue, in the court of common pleas of Washington county in the state of Pennsylvania, and there recorded. The declaration contained three counts. The first count set forth the recovery and record of the judgment as aforesaid in said court of common pleas, and alleged that it was still in force and unreversed. The second count contained similar allegations, and also alleged that in the former action Charles Donoghue was summoned, and property of John Donoghue was attached by process of foreign attachment, but he was never summoned, and never appeared, and that the proceedings in that action were duly recorded in that court. The third count repeated the allegations of the second count, and further alleged that 'by the law and practice of Pennsylvania the judgment so rendered against the two defendants aforesaid is in that state valid and enforceable against Charles Donoghue, and Void as against John Donoghue,' and that, 'by the law of Pennsylvania, any appeal from the judgment so rendered to the supreme court of Pennsylvania (which is the only court having jurisdiction of appeals from the said court of common pleas) is required to be made within two years of the rendition of the judgment; nevertheless no appeal has ever been taken from the judgment so rendered against the said defendants, or either or them.' The defendant filed a general demurrer to each and all of the counts, which was sustained, and a general judgment rendered for him. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs to the court of appeals of the state of Maryland, the judgment was affirmed. 59 Md. 239. The plaintiffs thereupon sued out this writ of error on the ground that the decision was against a right and privilege set up and claimed by them under the constitution and laws of the United States.
J. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.
E. C. Eichelberger, for defendant in error.
GRAY, 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
# Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
187 U.S. 617
Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company
Argued: and Submitted December 18, 1902. --- Decided: January 5, 1903
Mr. Charles E. Warner and Messrs. Winchester & Martin for appellants.
Messrs. Gardiner Lathrop, Thomas R. Morrow, James B. Read, and Max Pam for 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
# Hanly v. Kleindienst

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Friendly
* 471 F.2d 823
* Denis HANLY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants
* v.
* Richard G. KLEINDIENST, as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants-Appellees
* No. 357, Docket 72-1959
* United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
* Argued Nov. 6, 1972
* Decided Dec. 5, 1972
[p825] Alfred S. Julien, New York City (Julien, Glaser, Blitz & Schlesinger, Jesse A. Epstein, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Milton Sherman, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., T. Gorman Reilly, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and MANSFIELD and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
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
# Generals of the British Army/Horne, General Sir H. S.

GENERAL SIR HENRY HORNE
VI
GENERAL SIR HENRY SINCLAIR
HORNE, K.C.B.
SIR HENRY HORNE was born on February 19th, 1861; a son of the late Major James Home, of Stirkoke, Caithness. He was educated at Harrow and Woolwich, and entered the Royal Artillery in 1880. He served in the South African War with distinction, and during the early stages of the European War was soon recognised as one of the most able of our gunner Generals.
He went to France with Sir Douglas Haig as Brigadier-General of Artillery of the I Corps, and took part in the Retreat from Mons, the Battle of the Aisne and the First Battle of Ypres. He commanded the 2nd Division during the attack at Givenchy in connection with the Battle of Neuve Chapelle in March, 1915. This Division was also in action at the Battle of Loos in September, 1915, when it had much desperate fighting on both sides of the La Bassee Canal.
In November, 1915, General Home accompanied Lord Kitchener to Gallipoli and was afterwards sent on to Egypt to report on the defences of the Suez Canal. In January, 1916, he was appointed to the command of the XV Corps in Egypt, which, in April, was transferred to the Somme area.
In the first part of the battle his Corps was in action as the second from the British right. It was his men who took Fricourt and Mametz, assisted in the capture of Contalmaison and Bazentin le Petit, and on September i5th triumphantly entered Flers.
In the autumn of 1916 Sir Henry Home took over the command of the First Army and during the winter held the section of the British line between General Plumer and General Allenby. ​ In the Battle of Arras he commanded the British left. His troops carried the Vimy ridge and fought their way to the southern and western suburbs of Lens. Sir Henry Home's Army had now a similar general objective to that which his Division had had at the earlier Battle of Loos.
Sir Henry Home is one of the most trusted of British soldiers. Like the Commander-in-Chief, he is a man of few words but of many deeds. Scotland has played a great part in the war and has contributed more than her share of brilliant Generals. The one Scottish Army Commander in the West has nobly sustained the traditions of his country.