OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Fox v. Gulf Refining Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 75
Fox v. Gulf Refining Company
Respondent brought this suit to restrain the enforcement of the West Virginia Chain Store Act (Chapter 36, West Virginia Acts, 1933), upon the grounds (1) that gasoline filling stations were not 'stores' within the meaning of the Act; (2) that, if the Act were interpreted to include such filling stations, it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and (3) that if the foregoing questions were resolved against respondent, there were certain filling stations, particularly described, which were not stores 'belonging to, operated or controlled' by respondent.
The District Court of three judges (28 U.S.C. § 380 [28 USCA § 380]) entered a final decree permanently enjoining the enforcement of the Act, and the case comes here on appeal. In so deciding, the District Court sustained the first of the above-mentioned contentions of respondent, and also the second contention with respect to the denial of the equal protection of the laws, following its decision to the same effect in Standard Oil Company v. Fox, 6 F. Supp. 494. That decision was reversed by this Court. Fox v. Standard Oil Company, 294 U.S. 87, 55 S.C.t. 333, 79 L. Ed. 780, decided January 14, 1935. The District Court did not determine the third contention of respondent, as to its relation to certain gasoline stations and that is the only question now sought to be presented to this Court. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court, composed as above stated, in order that it may consider and decide that issue.

## 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
# Fox v. Capital Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
299 U.S. 105
Fox v. Capital Company
Argued: Oct. 16, 1936. --- Decided: Nov 9, 1936
Mr. Benjamin Reass, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Wm. D. Whitney, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# Fox v. Gulf Refining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 75
Fox v. Gulf Refining Company
Mr. Homer A. Holt, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellant.
No opinion filed in Court below.
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
# Gems of Chinese Literature/Yüan Shih-k‘ai-A Broken Oath

YÜAN SHIH-K‘AI.
1860-1916.
[A statesman with a singular record. He rose to the highest positions under the Manchu dynasty. His attitude towards the Boxers in 1900 was one which foreigners, saved thereby from what would probably have been a terrible massacre, must always remember with gratitude. He subsequently became a great favourite with the Empress Dowager; but in 1909, after attending a meeting of the Grand Council, he received an Edict which informed him that he “was unexpectedly suffering from an affection of the foot” and called upon him to resign. He obeyed at once, the explanation being that he had quarrelled with the Regent; and he remained in retirement until 1911, when he was recalled to deal with the revolutionaries. In 1912 he was elected President of the Republic, taking the oath given below. By 1915 he had engineered a movement in favour of himself as Emperor, which was disclosed and defeated principally by Liang Ch‘i-ch‘ao (q.v.); and after pretending to refuse, he actually fixed the date of his coronation for 9th February, 1916, and chose the style of his reign. But public opinion was too strong against him―the Chinese will forgive anything sooner than disloyalty―and the project was abandoned. He survived the disgrace only a few months.]
[From a Photograph.]
IHEREBY make oath and say:
With reference to the establishment of government by the people and the various administrative measures to be drawn up, I am most anxious to exert my utmost strength in spreading and supporting the republican spirit; to scour out the flaws and filth of autocratic rule; to observe the constitutional laws in accordance with the will of the people; and to associate our State with peaceable and powerful countries, so that the five great members of our nation may one and all derive happiness and profit therefrom. All these aims I swear to follow up without change; and so soon as the National Assembly has been called together and a President has been duly elected for the first term of this office, I will resign my position and will reverently adhere with all sincerity to the oath which I now swear to my countrymen.
(Signed) YUAN SHIH-K‘AI.
* ↑ Chinese, Manchus, Mongols, Mussulmans, and Tibetans.
* ↑ He himself was elected, with the consent of Sun Yat-sen, Provisional President in the south.
# Gems of Chinese Literature/Wên Ti-To the Captain of the Huns

WÊN TI.
Reigned 179-157 b.c.
[Bastard son of Kao Ti. The tone of this letter is especially remarkable, as addressed by the Emperor to the captain of a barbarian horde. But the irresistible power of the Huns had already begun to make itself severely felt.]
WE respectfully trust that the great Captain is well. We have respectfully received the two horses which the great Captain forwarded to Us.
The first Emperor of this dynasty adopted the following policy:―All to the north of the Long Wall, comprising the nations of the bow and arrow, to be subject to the great Captain: all within the Long Wall―namely, the families of the hat and girdle, to be subject to the House of Han. Thus, these peoples would each pursue their own avocations,―Ours, agriculture and manufacture of cloth; yours, archery and hunting,―in the acquisition of food and raiment. Father and son would not suffer separation; suzerain and vassal would rest in peace; and neither side would do violence to the other.
But of late We hear that certain worthless persons have been incited by the hope of gain to shake off their natural allegiance. Breaches of moral obligation and of treaty have occurred. There has been forgetfulness of family ties; and the tranquility of suzerain and vassal is at an end. This, however, belongs to the past. Your letter says, “The two States had become friendly; their rulers friends. The tramp of armies had been stilled for more peaceful occupations, and great joy had come upon successive generations at the new order of things.” We truly rejoice over these words. Let us then tread together this path of wisdom in due compassion for the peoples committed to our charge. Let us make a fresh start. Let us secure quiet to the aged; and to the young, opportunity to grow up, and, without risk of harm, to complete their allotted span.
The Hans and the Huns are border nations. Your northern climate is early locked in deadly cold. Therefore We have annually sent large presents of food and clothing and other useful things; and now the empire is at peace and the people prosperous. Of those people, We and you are, as it were, the father and mother; and for trivial causes, such as an Envoy's error, we should not lightly sever the bonds of brotherly love. Heaven, it is said, covers no one in particular; and Earth is the common resting-place of all men. Let us then dismiss these trifling grievances, and tread the broader path. Let us forget bygone troubles in a sincere desire to cement an enduring friendship, that our peoples may live like the children of a single family, while the blessings of peace and immunity from evil extend even to the fishes of the sea, to the fowls of the air, and to all creeping things. Unresting for ever is the course of Truth. Therefore let us obliterate the past. We will take no count of deserters or of injuries sustained. Do you take no count of those who have joined our banner.
The rulers of old never broke the faith of their treaties. O great Captain, remember this. And when peace shall prevail once more, rest assured that its first breach will not proceed from the House of Han.
# Gems of Chinese Literature/Yo Fei-Good Horses

YŎ FEI.
a.d. 1103-1141
[A famous military commander who was equally successful, at home in suppressing rebellion, and abroad in resisting the encroachments of the Tartars. However, the intrigues of a rival, by whose advice peace with the Tartars was purchased at the price of half the empire, brought him to the sword of the executioner. Posterity has avenged him by adopting the hated name of his betrayer as the common term for a spittoon.]
HIS Majesty asked me one day if I had any good horses; to which I replied that I used to have two excellent animals. “They ate,” I added, “large quantities of hay and many pecks of beans, daily; besides drinking each a gallon of spring water. Unless their food was fresh and clean, they would not touch it. On being mounted, they did not immediately break into a gallop; but would gradually warm into eagerness for their work. Between noon and sunset they would cover some sixty and odd miles; and on removing the saddle they would be found neither to have lost wind nor to have turned a hair any more than if they had been doing nothing. Such is the capacity for endurance in those who are well fed and well treated; who are willing, but not over-zealous. Unhappily, they both died; and those I have now do not eat more than a few pints per diem. They are not particular about either their food or their drink. Before you have fairly got hold of the bridle, away they go; and then, ere many miles are passed, they pant and sweat and are like to drop with fatigue. Such is the jaded condition of those who get little and are easily satisfied, who are over-eager and are easily exhausted.”
His Majesty praised my reply (“but,” as one commentator says, “quite missed the point.”)
# Gems of Chinese Literature/Yang Chu-Egoism

YANG CHU.
4th century b.c.
[A heterodox thinker who taught the doctrine of egoism, as opposed to the altruism of Mo Tzŭ (q.v.), also a dissenter from Confucianism pure and undefiled.
Yang Chu has left us no book. His views, as given below, are taken from chapter VII of the work ascribed to Lieh Tzŭ (q.v.), the authenticity of which has already been discussed under the name of its alleged author. These views are supposed to be stated in the actual words of Yang Chu, and at any rate may be held to represent adequately the opinions of the great egoist.]
Yang Chu said, A certain man would not part with a single hair in order to benefit any one. He turned his back on his country and went into retirement, occupying himself with agriculture. The Great Yü (see below) who did not employ himself for his own advantage, became paralysed on one side. The men of old, if by losing ​one hair they could advantage the empire, would not give it; but all would offer the whole body, which was not wanted. If no man ever lost a single hair, and no man ever advantaged the empire, the empire would enjoy good government. An enquirer then asked Yang Chu, saying, “If by sacrificing a single hair you could help the world, would you do it?” “The world,” replied Yang Chu, “could most certainly not be helped by a single hair.” “But if it could,” urged the enquirer, “would you do it?” To this, Yang Chu returned no answer, and the enquirer took his leave.
# Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Association

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 52
Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Association
Argued: Dec. 8, 1926. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1927
Mr. Adrien F. Busick, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 53-55 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Warren Olney, Jr., Edward J. McCutchen, and Allan P. Matthew, all of San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 56-58 intentionally omitted]
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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam 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.
* Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company (283 U.S. 643)
* Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company (316 U.S. 149)
# Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company (283 U.S. 643)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 643
Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Company
Argued: April 24, 1931. --- Decided: May 25, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. L. W. McCandless, of Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 568
Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Company
Argued: Feb. 13, 1967. --- Decided: April 11, 1967
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall, for petitioner.
Frederick W. R. Pride and Kenneth C. Royall, New York City, for respondent.
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
# Federal Trade Commission v. R. F. Keppel & Bro.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 304
Federal Trade Commission v. R. F. Keppel & Bro.
Argued: Jan. 11, 1934. --- Decided: Feb 5, 1934
[Syllabus from pages 304-306 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. Harold M.Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. George E. Elliott, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice STONE 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
# Garneau v. Dozier

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Garneau v. Dozier."
* 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.
* Garneau v. Dozier (100 U.S. 7)
* Garneau v. Dozier (102 U.S. 230)
# Garneau v. Dozier (102 U.S. 230)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 230
Garneau v. Dozier
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Joseph Garneau brought his bill of complaint against James Dozier and others. It is founded upon two letters-patent, the first being a reissue granted to Hosea Ball on the fourteenth day of June, 1870, and extended for seven years from Sept. 23, 1870. The original letters were granted to Ball Sept. 23, 1856, for an alleged 'new and useful improvement in ovens,' and were surrendered and reissued Oct. 12, 1869, and again June 14, 1870. The second letters set forth in the bill were granted to Mary Ann Elizabeth McKenzie May 1, 1860, also 'for a new and useful improvement in ovens.' They were surrendered and reissued April 19, 1870, reissued again April 20, 1875, numbered 6,397, assigned to Duncan McKenzie March 24, 1874, and extended for seven years from May 1, 1874. By sundry assignments these extended reissues have become the property of the complainant, and it is for the alleged infringement of them that this suit was brought.
The bill was dismissed on a final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs, and Garneau appealed.
The case was argued by Mr. Robert H. Parkinson for the appellant, and by Mr. Edward Boyd for the appellees.
Mr. JUSTICE STRONG 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
# Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinions Burton Black Douglas
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 716
Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles
Argued: April 25, 1951. --- Decided: June 4, 1951
Mr. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
I agree with the dissenting opinion of Mr. JUSTICE DOUGLAS but wish to emphasize two objections to the opinion of the Court:
1. Our per curiam opinion in Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U.S. 56, in no way stands for the principle for which the Court cites it today. In Gerende, we upheld a Maryland law that had been interpreted by the highest court of that state to require only an oath that a candidate "is not a person who is engaged 'in one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence,' and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt." The oath and affidavit in the present case are obviously not so limited.
The opinion of the Court creates considerable doubt as to the continued vitality of three of our past decisions; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303. To this extent it weakens one more of the Constitution's great guarantees of individual liberty. See, e.g., Dennis v. United States, ante, p. 494, and Breard v. Alexandria, ante, p. 622, decided this day.

## 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
# Garneau v. Dozier (100 U.S. 7)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 7
Garneau v. Dozier
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
This is an appeal taken by Garneau from a decree rendered in favor of the defendants below, partners doing business under the firm name of Dozier, Weyl, & Co. The authentication of the transcript of the record filed here is as follows:--
'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, ss.
'I, M. M. Price, clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Eastern District of Missouri, do hereby certify the writing hereto attached to be a true transcript of the record, proceedings, and exhibits in case No. 560 of Joseph F. Garneau, plaintiff, against Dozier, Weyl, & Co., defendants, as fully as the same remain on file and of record in said case in my office.
'In witness whereof I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the seal of said court, at office in the city of St. Louis, in said district, this seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-seven.
[SEAL.] 'M. M. PRICE,
'Clerk of said Court.
'By T. L. CRAWFORD,
'Deputy.'
Mr. Edward Boyd in support of the motion.
Mr. Robert H. Parkinson, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles/Dissent Burton

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinions Burton Black Douglas
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 716
Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles
Argued: April 25, 1951. --- Decided: June 4, 1951
Mr. Justice BURTON, dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I cannot agree that under our decisions the oath is valid. United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366; Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356. The oath is so framed as to operate retrospectively as a perpetual bar to those employees who held certain views at any time since a date five years preceding the effective date of the ordinance. It leaves no room for a change of heart. It calls for more than a profession of present loyalty or promise of future attachment. It is not limited in retrospect to any period measured by reasonable relation to the present. In time this ordinance will amount to the requirement of an oath that the affiant has never done any of the proscribed acts. Cf. Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U.S. 56, 71 S.Ct. 565; American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 413 414, 70 S.Ct. 674, 691, 692, 94 L.Ed. 925.
The oath is not saved by the fact that it reaches back only to December 6, 1943, and that city employees have been forbidden since April 28, 1941, under § 432 of the Los Angeles Charter, to advise, teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the Government. See the Lovett, Garland and Cummings cases, supra.
I agree with the Court that the judgment should be affirmed as to petitioners Pacific and Schwartz. They executed the oath but refused to sign an affidavit calling for information as to their past or present membership in the Communist Party or the Communist Political Association. Such refusal does not now present the question of whether the Constitution permits the City to discharge them from municipal employment on the basis of information in their affidavits. We have before us only the question of whether municipal employees may be required to give to their employer factual information which is relevant to a determination of their present loyalty and suitability for public service. Such loyalty and suitability is no less material in candidates for appointment as municipal employees than in candidates for elective office, Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, supra, or union officers, American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, supra.

## 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
# Garneau v. Dozier (100 U.S. 7)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 7
Garneau v. Dozier
Since the act of June 8, 1872 (17 Stat. 330), Rev. Stat. 558, 624, 678, authorizing the appointment of deputies of the clerks of the courts of the United States, a transcript of the record is sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of an appeal or a writ of error to this court, if it is signed by the deputy in the name of and for the clerk of the court from which the appeal comes, or to which the writ of error is directed, and sealed with the seal of that court. The transcript sent up in this case comes within this rule.
Motion denied.

## 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