OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Minneapolis Agricultural Mechanical Association v. Canfield

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
121 U.S. 295
Minneapolis Agricultural Mechanical Association v. Canfield
[Syllabus from pages 295-296 intentionally omitted]
E. M. Wilson, for appellants.
Geo. F. Edmunds, Chas. E. Flandrau, and E. C. Palmer, for appellees.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Minneapolis Railway Company v. Rock

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 410
Minneapolis Railway Company v. Rock
Argued: March 8, 1929. --- Decided: May 13, 1929
Messrs. Henry S. Mitchell and John E. Palmer, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.
Mr. H. H. Patterson, of Chicago, Ill., 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
# Minneapolis Gas-Light Company v. Kerr-Murray Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 300
Minneapolis Gas-Light Company v. Kerr-Murray Manufacturing Company
Anson B. Jackson, for appellant.
Geo. C. Squires, for appellee.
MATTHEWS, 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
# Minneapolis Railway Company v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
134 U.S. 467
Minneapolis Railway Company v. Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission
W. H. Norris, J. H. Howe., and W. C. Goudy, for plaintiff in error.
Moses E. Clapp, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 467-469 intentionally omitted]
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Minor v. Tillotson (42 U.S. 287)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
42 U.S. 287
Minor v. Tillotson
This is a writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.
A motion has been made to dismiss the writ, upon the ground that the record contains no bill of exception, nor statement of facts by the court, according to the practice in Louisiana, by which any question of law is brought up for revision in such a form as to enable this court to decide upon it; and that there is a mass of various and conflicting testimony in relation to facts, upon which no jurisdiction can be exercised upon a writ of error.
Assuming this statement to be correct, it does not follow that advantage can be taken of it upon a motion to dismiss. The record shows that a judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court, over which this court undoubtedly have jurisdiction upon a writ of error. The plaintiffs allege that there is error in law in this judgment, and have brought it here for the revision of this court. And upon the argument of the case it will be incumbent upon them to show that the record presents, in some form or other, a statement of facts upon which a question of law arose in the Circuit Court, and which was there erroneously decided. And if he fails to do this, the judgment must be affirmed. But he is entitled to be heard, in order that he may show, if he can, that the error of which he complains appears in the record; and whether it does so appear or not, is a matter which cannot be inquired into in the form in which the case is now brought before us.
The motion must therefore be dismissed.
On consideration of the motion made in this cause on a prior day of the present term of this court, to wit, on Saturday, the 18th ult., by Mr. Webster, to dismiss this writ of error for the want of jurisdiction, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon had, as well in support of as against the said motion, it is thereupon now here considered and ordered by this court, that the said motion be and the same is hereby dismissed.

## 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
# Minor v. Tillotson

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Minor v. Tillotson."
* 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.
* Minor v. Tillotson (32 U.S. 99)
* Minor v. Tillotson (42 U.S. 287)
* Minor v. Tillotson (43 U.S. 392)
# Minor v. Tillotson (43 U.S. 392)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
43 U.S. 392
Minor v. Tillotson
THIS case was brought before the court at the last term, on a motion to dismiss, and is reported in 1 Howard, 287.
The position of the case is sufficiently set forth in that report. It now came up on a final hearing.
Walker, for the plaintiffs in error, examined the title of the plaintiffs as set forth in the papers in the cause, and contended for its superiority over that of the defendant.
Webster, for the defendant, referred to the decision in 1 Howard, and said that it was quite evident that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record. There is no ruling of evidence, no demurrer, no bill of exceptions, no agreed state of facts, no special verdict. Nor is it like any of those cases in which the court has acted on undisputed evidence, in cases from Louisiana, as if such undisputed evidence were equivalent to an agreed state of facts.
The whole case, law and fact, was submitted to the judge, as a referee or arbitrator. The law was disputed, and the facts were disputed; and whether judgment was rendered on the facts or on the law does not appear. The judgment is general, for the defendant. It is plain that this court cannot revise this judgment, without examining all the evidence, plan, depositions, surveys, &c., just as they would be examined by a jury.
For any thing which the record discloses, every point of law may have been decided in the plaintiff's favor.
Mr. Justice McLEAN 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
# Minor v. Tillotson (42 U.S. 287)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
42 U.S. 287
Minor v. Tillotson
Webster, of counsel for the defendant, moved to dismiss the writ of error in this case, for the following reasons:
1. Because this court has no jurisdiction on writs of error of any question apparent in this record.
2. Because the record does not show any question of law to have been decided in the court below, which this court can revise.
3. Because there is no question of law stated on the record by bill of exception; nor any special verdict, or agreed state of facts, or any unquestioned evidence of facts, on which any question of law can arise.
4. Because it does not appear whether any, or, if any, what matter of law was in dispute between the parties.
The action was brought to recover certain tracts of land. Two trials had been had; the verdict rendered on the first had been set aside by the court, and the judgment rendered on the second verdict reversed by this court.
Another jury was empannelled to try the cause, June 11, 1839; and after the trial had proceeded for some time, the parties agreed that the whole case should be submitted to the court, on the facts and the law, and that the judge should state the facts as he should find them; that such statement might be regarded as a special verdict.
On the 10th April, 1840, the court rendered a general judgment for the defendant, without making any statement of facts whatever. And thereupon, the next day, April 11, 1840, the parties agreed that all documents, plans, depositions, evidence, and exhibits, read in the cause, should be taken for a statement of facts in the case. The whole mass, therefore, of various and conflicting evidence, mixed up with questions of law, if there be such questions, is submitted to the decision of the judges of this court. This is a form of exercising its appellate jurisdiction on writs of error which it is not supposed to be competent to this court to adopt. 2 Wheat. 363; 3 Peters, 410; 16 Peters, 169.
Walker opposed the motion, and contended that there were three questions of law in the case, and that the statement of the judge was adopted, by agreement, as a special verdict.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Minor v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 87
Minor v. United States
Argued: Oct. 15, 1969. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1969
[Syllabus from pages 87-88 intentionally omitted]
Phylis Skloot Bamberger, New York City, for petitioner, James minor.
Peter L. Strauss, Washington, D.C., for respondent, the United States in No. 189.
David A. Diamond, New York City, for petitioner, Michael Buie.
Joseph J. Connolly, Washington, D.C., for respondent, the United States in No. 271.
Mr. 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
# Minor v. Tillotson (32 U.S. 99)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 99
Minor v. Tillotson

## 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
# Missouri v. Holland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that protection of its quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a bill by a State to enjoin enforcement of federal regulations over the subject alleged to be unconstitutional, and that the federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The case revolved around the constitutionality of implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. It is also notable for Justice Holmes' reference to the idea of a living constitution. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 416
Missouri v. Holland
Argued: March 2, 1920. --- Decided: April 19, 1920
Messrs. J. G. L. Harvey, of Kansas City, Mo., and John T. Gose, of Shelbina, Mo., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 417-424 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 424-430 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
# Missouri v. Dockery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
191 U.S. 165
Missouri v. Dockery
Argued: and submitted October 27, 1903. --- Decided: November 16, 1903
Messrs. Edward P. Johnson, Frank K. Ryan, and William Preston Hill for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 165-168 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Edward C. Crow and Bruce Barnett for defendants 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
# Missouri v. Illinois

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Missouri v. Illinois."
* 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.
* Missouri v. Illinois (180 U.S. 208)
* Missouri v. Illinois (200 U.S. 496)
* Missouri v. Illinois (202 U.S. 598)
See also Illinois v. Missouri.
# Missouri v. Illinois (180 U.S. 208)/Dissent Fuller

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Fuller
United States Supreme Court
180 U.S. 208
Missouri v. Illinois
Argued: April 30, 1900. --- Decided: for oral argument May 21, 1900
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White, dissenting:
Controversies between the states of this Union are made justiciable by the Constitution because other modes of determining them were surrendered; and before that jurisdiction which is intended to supply the place of the means usually resorted to by independent sovereignties to terminate their differences can be invoked, it must appear that the states are in direct antagonism as states. Clearly this bill makes out no such state of case.
If, however, on the case presented, it was competent for Missouri to implead the state of Illinois the only ground on which it can be rested is to be found in the allegation that its governor was about to authorize the water to be turned into the drainage channel.
The sanitary district was created by an act of the general assembly of Illinois, and the only authority of the state having any control or supervision over the channel is that corporation. Any other control or supervision lies with the lawmaking power of the state of Illinois, and I cannot suppose that complainant seeks to coerce that. It is difficult to conceive what decree could be entered in this case which would bind the state of Illinois or control its action.
The governor, it is true, was empowered by the act to authorize the water to be let into the channel on the receipt of a certificate, by commissioners appointed by him to inspect the work, that the channel was of the capacity and character required. This was done, and the water was let in on the day when the application was made to this court for leave to file the bill. The governor had discharged his duty, and no official act of Illinois, as such, remained to be performed.
Assuming that a bill could be maintained against the sanitary district in a proper case, I cannot agree that the state of Illinois would be a necessary or proper party, or that this bill can be maintained against the corporation as the case stands.
The act complained of is not a nuisance per se, and the injury alleged to be threatened is contingent. As the channel has been in operation for a year, it is probable that the supposed basis of complaint can now be tested. But it does not follow that the bill in its present shape should be retained.
In my opinion both the demurrers should be sustained, and the bill dismissed, without prejudice to a further application, as against the sanitary district, if authorized by the state of Missouri.
My brothers Harlan and White concur with me in this dissent.
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
# Missouri v. Fiske

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 18
Missouri v. Fiske
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 18, 1933. --- Decided: Nov 6, 1933
Messrs. Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Gilbert Lamb and Powell B. McHaney, Asst. Attys. Gen., of Salisbury, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. G. A. Buder, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo. (Mr. Oscar E. Buder, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 19-21 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Dant

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 375
National Labor Relations Board v. Dant
Argued: Dec. 15, 1952. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1953
Mr. David P. Findling, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John T. Casey, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 398
National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc.
Argued: Dec. 8, 1959. --- Decided: Feb 23, 1960
Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. James G. Wheeler, Paducah, Ky., for respondents.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 217
National Labor Relations Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills
Argued: Jan. 31, 1949. --- Decided: May 31, 1949
See 337 U.S. 950, 69 S.Ct. 1512.
Mr. David P. Findling, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Ralph Williams, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornton, Francis Hugh

​Thornton, Francis Hugh, LL.B., King's Coll., Camb., 1876, a member of the Midland circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 1 May, 1875 (then aged 21), called to the bar 3 July, 1878 (2nd son of Rev. William Thornton, late of Kingsthorpe Hall, Northants, dec.); born 8 Oct., 1853 (see Foster's Baronetage, Anson).
    Care of Kingsthorpe Hall, Northampton.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thorne, John Arnold

​Thorne, John Arnold, a member of the Western circuit, formerly a solicitor, lieut. 4th volunteer batt. the Devonshire regt., a student of the Middle Temple 9 Nov., 1881, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1882 (son of Henry King Thorne, borough treasurer of Barnstaple, Devon); born , .
    Barnstaple.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornely, John

​Thornely, John, B.A. London Univ. 1848 and a member of Convocation, private secretary to Rt Hon. C. P. Villiers (president Poor Law Board) 1859-66, auditor under Local Government Board 1869-79, a student of the Middle Temple 3 Nov., 1849, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1853 (4th son of John Daniel Thornely, of Liverpool, merchant, dec.); born 10 July, 1829; married 12 June, 1862, Ellen Agnes, 2nd dau. of Thomas Heath, Esq., of Myton Grange, co. Warwick.
    Belvedere House, Esher, Surrey.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thorne, Augustus

​Thorne, Augustus, a student of the Middle Temple 2 Jan., 1863, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1865 (3rd son of Thomas Thorne, of Loraine Place, London, gent.); born , .
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornton, Edward

​Thornton, Edward, M.A., Christ Church, Oxon, 1837, a student of Lincoln's Inn 19 Nov., 1836 (then aged 23), called to the bar 30 Jan., 1840 (4th son of Thomas Reeve Thornton, Esq., of Brockhall, Northants); born , 1813.
    Brockhall Hall, Weedon, Northants.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornton, Richard Napolean

​Thornton, Richard Napolean, assumed the surname of Thornton in lieu of his patronymic, a student of the Middle Temple 9 Feb., 1857, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1860 (only son of Richard Lee, of Brixton, Surrey, dec.), born , ; married 11 July, 1867; Ellen Annie, dau. of Richard M. Jones, Esq., of London.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornton, Swinford Leslie

​Thornton, Swinford Leslie, undergrad. Lincoln Coll., Oxon, a student of Lincoln's Inn 10 June, 1874 (then aged 21), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1877 (eldest son of William Henry Thornton, of Margate, surgeon); born , 1853.
    1, Old Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornely, Thomas

​Thornely, Thomas, M.A., Trin. Hall, Camb., 1881, LL.M. 1880, examiner in law tripos Camb. 1884, a student of the Inner Temple 9 Nov., 1878 (then aged 23), studentship Hilary, 1879, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1882 (eldest son of James Thornely, of Woolton, Liverpool, solicitor); born , 1855.
    Woolton, Liverpool.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornhill, Charles Edward

​Thornhill, Charles Edward, M.A., Christ Church, Oxon, 1842, chairman.of quarter sessions Oxon since 1878, J.P., a student of Lincoln's Inn 16 Jan., 1838 (then aged 20), called to the bar 28 Jan., 1842 (eldest son of Thomas Thornhill, Esq., of Woodleys, Oxon); bom , 1818; married 6 Aug., 1850, Ellen Eliza Fanny, youngest dau. of Major George Fraser, in service of Rajah of Najpore, formerly 65th regt.
    17, Norham Gardens, Oxford; Oriental Club.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornton, Arthur Stephen

​Thornton, Arthur Stephen, B.A., Christ Church, Oxon, 1872, a student of Lincoln's Inn 3 June, 1874 (then aged 23), called to the bar 25 April, 1877 (3rd son of Harry Thornton, Esq., of Kempstone Grange, Beds); bom 30 July, 1850 (see Foster's Yorkshire Collection).
    Kempstone Grange, Bedford; 23, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.