OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hawaii v. Gordon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
373 U.S. 57
Hawaii v. Gordon
Argued: April 15, 1963. --- Decided: April 29, 1963
Bert T. Kobayashi, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Dennis G. Lyons, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
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
# Hawaii v. Mankichi

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
190 U.S. 197
Hawaii v. Mankichi
Argued: March 4, 5, 1903. --- Decided: June 1, 1903
This was a petition by Mankichi for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release from the Oahu convict prison, where he is confined upon conviction for manslaughter, in alleged violation of the Constitution, in that he was tried upon an indictment not found by a grand jury, and convicted by the verdict of nine out of twelve jurors, the other three dissenting from the verdict.
Following the usual course of procedure in the Republic of Hawaii, prior to its incorporation as a territory of the United States, the prisoner was tried upon an indictment much in the form of an information at common law, by the attorney general, and indorsed 'a true bill, found this 4th day of May, A. D. 1899. A. Perry, first judge of the circuit court,' etc.
From an order of the United States district court, discharging the prisoner, the attorney general of the territory appealed to this court.
Messrs. Edmund P. Dole and Solicitor General Richards for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 199-203 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., Paul Fuller, George A. Davis, F. M. Brooks, and Charles Fred Adams for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 203-209 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# Hicklin v. Coney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 169
Hicklin v. Coney
Argued: Nov. 17, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.
Messrs. B. Wofford Wait, of Tampa, Fla., and J. N. Nathans and John P. Grace, both of Charileston, S.C., for appellant.
Mr. Irvine F. Belser, of Columbia, S.C., for appellees.
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
# Hic Jacet (Williams)

Published in The Tempers (1913).
The coroner's merry little children  Have such twinkling brown eyes.
Their father is not of gay men  And their mother jocular in no wise,
Yet the coroner's merry little children  Laugh so easily.
They laugh because they prosper.  Fruit for them is upon all branches.
Lo! how they jibe at loss, for  Kind heaven fills their little paunches!
It's the coroner's merry, merry children  Who laugh so easily.
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 1963, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 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
# Hic Jacet (Newbolt)

* "Hic Jacet Qui in Hoc Saeculo Fideliter Militavit", in A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919 (1917)
* "Hic Jacet", in Poems: New and Old (1919)
# Hawkins v. Blake

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 422
Hawkins v. Blake
A. S. Merrimon and Thos. C. Fuller, for appellants.
John W. Hinsdale and S. F. Phillips, 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
# Hawkins v. Bleakly

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 210
Hawkins v. Bleakly
Argued: January 24, 1916. ---
Restored to docket for oral argument November 13, 1916.
Argued December 20, 1916.
Decided March 6, 1917.
Messrs. Robert Ryan, James P. Hewitt, and F. G. Ryan for appellant.
Messrs. Henry E. Sampson and John T. Clarkson, and Mr. George Cosson, Attorney General of Iowa, for appellees.
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
# Georgia v. South Carolina (259 U.S. 572)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
259 U.S. 572
Georgia v. South Carolina (259 U.S. 572)
Decree declaring location of interstate boundary.
This cause came on to be heard by this court, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions of the court as stated in its opinion herein. 257 U.S. 516, 42 Sup. Ct. 173, 66 L. Ed. 347.
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the boundary between the states of Georgia and South Carolina is and shall be the rivers Savannah, Tugaloo, and Chattooga to the point where the latter river touches the North Carolina line at the thirty-fifth parallel of north latitude, and the location of the boundary line between said states is hereby established and declared to be as set forth in the opinion of the court as follows:
First. Where there are no islands in the boundary rivers the location of the line between the two states is on the water midway between the main banks of the river when water is at ordinary stage.
Second. Where there are islands, the line is midway between the island bank and the South Carolina shore when the water is at ordinary stage.
Third. That all islands formed by nature in the Chattooga river are reserved to Georgia as completely as are those in the Savannah and Tugaloo rivers.
Fourth. That the parties to this suit may at any time, by mutual consent, locate and monument the boundary line in any part of the boundary rivers in accordance with the provisions of this decree.
It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the costs of this suit shall be equally divided between the said two states and that the clerk of this court shall forthwith transmit to the chief magistrates of the states of Georgia and South Carolina copies of this decree duly authenticated under the seal 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
# Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company."
* 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.
* Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company (206 U.S. 230)
* Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company (237 U.S. 474)
* Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company (237 U.S. 678)
* Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company (240 U.S. 650)
* Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company (304 U.S. 546)
# Georgia v. South Carolina (259 U.S. 572)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
259 U.S. 572
Georgia v. South Carolina (259 U.S. 572)

## 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
# Georgia v. South Carolina (257 U.S. 516)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 516
Georgia v. South Carolina (257 U.S. 516)
Argued: Jan. 4 and 5, 1922. --- Decided: Jan 30, 1922
Messrs. Thomas F. Green, of Athens, Ga., George M. Napier, of Atlanta, Ga., Clifford Walker, of Monroe, Ga., and Graham Wright, of Rome, Ga., for complainant.
Messrs. Samuel M. Wolfe, Atty. Gen., and A. M. Lumpkin, of Columbia, S.C.., for defendant.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# Georgia v. Stanton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Georgia v. Stanton, aka The Library Case, 73 U.S. 50 (1868), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the court does not hold jurisdiction over the political question of enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts against the Southern States. The court did recognize its original jurisdiction in the matter and its ability to decide issues of the rights of persons or property. Nevertheless, the case before it was not one of persons or property, but the political question of whether the federal government could annul state governments and replace them with new ones. Since it found that the issue raised by the three Southern States was a political one, the court decided it did not possess jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 50
Georgia v. Stanton

## 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
# Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company (206 U.S. 230)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
206 U.S. 230
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company
Argued: February 25, 26, 1907. --- Decided: May 13, 1907
Messrs. Ligon Johnson and John C. Hart for complainant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 231-236 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. James G. Parks, Howard Cornick, John H. Frantz, James B. Wright, and Martin H. Vogel for defendants.
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
# Holden Land Live Stock Company v. Interstate Trading Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
233 U.S. 536
Holden Land Live Stock Company v. Interstate Trading Company
Argued: February 26 and 27, 1914. --- Decided: May 4, 1914
Messrs. Edward P. Garnett, Oliver H. Dean, and Charles Blood Smith for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Leonard S. Ferry, Thomas F. Doran, John S. Dean, and Elijah Robinson for defendants in error.
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
# Hold the Fort (Bliss)

This hymn was inspired by an incident at the Battle of Allatoona in the American Civil War. A Union garrison under Brig. Gen. John M. Corse was under heavy attack from a Confederate division led by Maj. Gen. Samuel G. French. The garrison was very close to defeat, when they received a flag-signal from Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman saying "Sherman is moving in force. Hold out," and then, "General Sherman says hold fast. We are coming." The Union garrison, encouraged by Sherman's message, were able to hold out until reinforcements arrived.
* "Hold the Fort" in Grand Army War Songs, (ed.) by Wilson G. Smith (1886).
* "Hold the Fort" in The Canadian Soldiers' Song Book (1918).
# Hold the Fort!/Preface

Preface
This is a history of a gospel song, which I first learned about a decade and a half ago while a historian in the Department of the Army's old Signal Corps Historical Division. I have been occupied with the song's history off and on ever since. Even as I concluded this account—to illustrate how the history of the song marches on—I heard from my friend John I. White of Brielle, New Jersey, that cowboys used to sing not only lullabies and ribald range songs to their herds but also "Hold the Fort" and other gospel songs. He said he had learned this interesting piece of information from the book Cattle by Will Croft Barnes (an old Signal Corpsman, by the way) and William McLeod Raines. About the time that White wrote to me, The New Yorker published a Weber cartoon in which a middle-aged man tells his stolid wife, who is seated before the family television set: "I'm going out to get a paper. Hold the fort." As my friends will attest, I have been saying much the same thing for as long as they can remember.
Numerous thanks for assistance rendered me in this undertaking are scattered through the footnotes, but I would like to give special thanks to the following persons for their specialized and generous help and encouragement: Fred E. Brown of Houston, Texas; Joe Glazer of the United States Information Agency; Walter Rundell, Jr., chairman of the history faculty at Iowa State University; Alice Cole Scheips of the Industrial Union Department, AFL–CIO; Annie L. Seely of the United States Army Photographic Agency; Irwin Silber of New York City; Vincent H. Demma and Loretto C. Stevens of the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army; and the members of the staff, past and present, of the Music Division, Library of Congress.
Paul J. Scheips Washington, D.C. January 1971
# Hay v. May Department Stores Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 318
Hay v. May Department Stores Company
Argued: April 29, 1926. --- Decided: May 24, 1926
Action in state court against two defendants jointly, in which plaintiff states a case of joint liability arising out of the concurrent negligence of both defendants, does not present a separable controversy as affecting right of removal to federal court under Judicial Code, § 28 (Comp. St. § 1010), though plaintiff might have sued defendants separately.
Allegations of complaint in action against two defendants jointly are decisive against separable nature of controversy, in absence of showing that one defendant was fraudulently joined to prevent removal.
Petition in employee's action against nonresident employer and resident coemployee, jointly alleging that plaintiff was injured by being run into by coemployee's truck after his own had been stopped by de bris obstructing passageway, through concurrent negligence of both defendants, held not to state a separable controversy as to the employer, as affecting its right of removal, under Judicial Code, § 28 (Comp. St. § 1010).
Messrs. James J. O'Donohoe, Mark D. Eagleton, and Harry S. Rooks, all of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Robert A. Holland, Jr., and Jacob M. Lashly, both of St. Louis, Mo., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Haydel v. Girod

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
35 U.S. 283
Haydel v. Girod
IN error to the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.
The defendant in error instituted a suit in the district court, on a promissory note: and the defendant having applied, after the suit was brought, to a court of Louisiana for the benefit of the insolvent law of that state; pleaded a respite, obtained in those proceedings against his creditors.
In the proceedings of the court of Louisiana, in the petition of the plaintiff in error, it no where appears that any notice of the same was given to Francois Girod; on this ground the district court decided against the plea, and gave judgment for the plaintiff in that court.
The defendant prosecuted this writ of error.
The case was argued by Mr Key, for the defendant in error. No counsel appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr Key contended:
That the plaintiff below was no party to these proceedings, nor in any way affected by them; and, that the proceedings were wholly irregular, and did not entitle the defendant, in the district court, to a respite against any of his creditors.
Mr Key referred to the civil code of Louisiana, article 3051, and others; which require that notice shall be given to the creditors of a petitioner; and which declare that no creditor, other than those to whom such notice had been given, should be affected by the same.
He also cited Breedlove and Roberson v. Nicolet and Sigg, 7 Peters 434, in which was decided the question presented in this case. He claimed ten per cent damages, as he contended the writ of error had been sued out for delay only; the law of the case having been clearly settled in the case cited.
Mr Justice M'LEAN 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
# Hayden v. Manning

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 586
Hayden v. Manning
John H. Mitchell and A. H. Garland, for appellant.
W. Lair Hill and Geo. A. King, for appellee.
MILLER, 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
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Doe; The Dodo

The Doe and her phonetic double, No longer are a source of trouble, Because the Dodo, it appears, Has been extinct for many years: She was too haughty to embark, With total strangers in Noah's ark, And we rejoice because her pride, Our nature book has simplified.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Cat-bird; The Cat-nip

The Cat-bird's call resembles that Emitted by the Pussy Cat, While Cat-nip growing by the wall, Is never known to caterwaul: It's odor though attracts the Kits, And throws them in Cat-nip-tion fits.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Cow; The Cowry

The Cowry seems to be, somehow, A sort of mouth-piece for the Cow: A speaking likeness one might say, Which I've endeavored to portray.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Butter-ball; The Buttercup

The little Butter-cup can sing, From morn 'till night like anything. The quacking of the Butter-ball, Cannot be called a song at all. We thus the flower may learn to know, Its song is reproduced below.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Clover; The Plover

The Plover and the Clover can be told apart with ease, By paying close attention to the habits of the Bees, For En-to-molo-gists aver, the Bee can be in Clover, While Ety-molo-gists concur, there is no B in Plover.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Eel; The Eelephant

The marked aversion which we feel, When in the presence of the Eel, Makes many view with consternation, The Elephant's front ele-vation. Such folly must be clearly due To their peculiar point of view.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Elk; The Whelk

A roar of welkome through the welkin Is certain proof you'll find the Elk in; But if you listen to the shell, In which the Whelk is said to dwell, And hear a roar, beyond a doubt It indicates the Whelk is out.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Bunny; The Tunny

The superficial naturalists have often been misled, By failing to discriminate between the tail and head: It really is unfortunate such carelessness prevails, Because the Bunnies have their heads where Tunnies have their tails.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Cow-bird; The Cowslip

Although the Cow'slips on this plant, Suggest perhaps a ru-min-ant, One never sees the opening bud, Devour the grass or chew its cud. The Cowbird picture, I suspect, Is absolutely incorrect; We make such errors now and then, A sort of cow slip of the pen.
# How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers and other wood-cuts/The Crow; The Crocus

Some are unable, as you know, To tell the Crocus from the Crow; The reason why is just be-caws They are not versed in Nature's laws. The noisy cawing Crows all come, Obedient to the Cro'custom, A large Crow Caw-cus to convoke. You never hear the Crocus croak!
# Greene v. Louisville & Interurban Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
244 U.S. 499
Greene v. Louisville & Interurban Railroad Company
ROBERT L. GREENE, Auditor, Sherman Goodpaster,
Treasurer, and James P. Lewis, Secretary of State,
Constituting the Board of Valuation and Assessment for the State of Kentucky, et al., Appts.,
v.
LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 618.
Nos. 617 and 618.
Argued January 16, 17, and 18, 1917.
Decided June 11, 1917.
[Syllabus from pages 499-501 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Marvel M. Logan, Attorney General of Kentucky, and Messrs. Charles Carroll and John L. Rich, for appellants.
Messrs. Alexander Pope Humphrey and Edward P. Humphrey for appellees.
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
# Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion White
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
398 U.S. 6
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler
Argued: Feb. 24 and 25, 1970. --- Decided: May 18, 1970
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, concurs in the judgment of the Court for the reasons set out in Mr. Justice Black's concurring opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 170, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1999, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967), and in Mr. Justice Douglas' concurring opinion in Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 80, 85 S.Ct. 209, 218, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964).

## 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
# Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler

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

## Concurring Opinion

    White

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
398 U.S. 6
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler
Argued: Feb. 24 and 25, 1970. --- Decided: May 18, 1970
Roger A. Clark, New York City, for petitioners.
Abraham Chasanow, Greenbelt, Md., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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