OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Georgia Railway Power Company v. Town of Decatur

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 432
Georgia Railway Power Company v. Town of Decatur
Argued: April 24 and 25, 1923. --- Decided: June 4, 1923
Mr. Walter T. Colquitt, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. J. Howell Green, of Decatur, Ga., and Frank Harwell, of Atlanta, Ga., for defendant in error.
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
# Georgia Railway Electric Company v. City of Decatur (297 U.S. 620)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 620
Georgia Railway Electric Company v. City of Decatur
Argued: March 6, 1936. --- Decided: March 30, 1936
Mr. Walter T. Colquitt, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 621 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James A. Branch, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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 State Constitution

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Georgia State Constitution."
* related portals: Constitutional documents, Georgia (U. S. state).
* 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.
The Constitution of the State of Georgia has been revised on several occasions since that state's admission to the Union.
* Charter of Georgia
* Georgia State Constitution (1777)
* Georgia State Constitution (1789)
* Georgia State Constitution (1798)
* Georgia State Constitution (1861)
* Georgia State Constitution (1865)
* Georgia State Constitution (1868)
* Georgia State Constitution (1945)
* Georgia State Constitution (1976)
* Georgia State Constitution (1983)
# Glenny v. Langdon (94 U.S. 604)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 604
Glenny v. Langdon
The bill in this case shows upon its face that the suit was prosecuted by Glenny as a representative creditor, and that the other creditors named had the right to rely upon him for the protection of their interest, until notice to the contrary. On Saturday, the 13th January, Glenny, at Cincinnati, Ohio, entered into a stipulation with the defendants, consenting to a dismissal of the suit on their paying the costs. A copy of this stipulation was, on the same day with its execution, served, at Cincinnati, on the counsel representing the complaint and those interested with him in the litigation, accompanied by a notice that a motion had been filed to dismiss the appeal in accordance therewith; but no time was named for the hearing. On the same day, the counsel for the defendants forwarded the stipulation to the clerk, with the request that it be docketed in accordance with the practice of the court. In the letter transmitting the motion it was intimated that there might be opposition, and in that event a request was made for notice, and information as to the practice in such cases.
On Tuesday, the 16th of January, the stipulation was presented to the court by Mr. Carpenter, at the request of the clerk, made upon the authority of the letter transmitting it, and the suit was dismissed. On Monday, the 15th January, the counsel for the complainant wrote the clerk from Cincinnati, asking him not to delay printing the record on account of the motion, and intimating that the motion would not be sustained. A memorandum was made upon this letter by the clerk, to the effect that he replied on the 20th January, giving notice of the dismissal on the 16th. The letter of the clerk in reply did not reach the counsel, and he had no notice of what had been done until about the first of this month, and immediately thereafter the present motion was made.
Under the circumstances, we think the motion to dismiss was improvidently granted, and the order to that effect entered Jan. 16, is, therefore, set aside. The notice of the motion was insufficient and irregular, as it designated no time for the hearing. It is evident, also, that the counsel for the complainant supposed, as he properly might, that he was to have further information of the time when the motion would be called up. No other questions argued upon the present motion are decided, but the cause is reinstated, and the parties placed in the same condition they would be if the order of dismissal had not been entered.
Motion granted.

## 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
# Glenn v. United States (Hempst. 394)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
​OPINION OF THE COURT.—In this case, I do not deem it necessary to give reasons at length for the decree I shall render, ​because the decision must depend mainly on principles already decided in the Winter cases, and in the De Villemont case. It is true that this is in some respects different; but that difference is rather formal than substantial.
I deem the claim invalid upon two grounds: first, that the conditions of the grant were not complied with; and I will merely remark that I cannot subscribe to the argument that it was a grant without conditions; second, that there was no authoritative survey of the grant, which was undoubtedly required by the Spanish regulations. For my reasons on this point, I refer to the opinion in the case of the Heirs of Elisha Winter. Nor do I deem the calls of the grant sufficiently certain to separate any land from the royal domain without a survey.
On these two grounds, the claim must be rejected.
Decreed accordingly.
From this decree the petitioners appealed to the supreme court; and at the December term, 1851, the case was argued there by Mr. Webster and Mr. Johnson for the appellants, and Mr. Crittenden, attorney-general, for the United States. It is reported in 13 Howard's S.C. Rep. 250.
* ↑ Ante, p. 344.
* ↑ The supreme court, it will be seen, overruled this point, holding that the grant was sufficiently described to fix its locality.
# Glenny v. Langdon

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Glenny v. Langdon."
* 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.
* Glenny v. Langdon (94 U.S. 604)
* Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)
# Glenny v. Langdon (94 U.S. 604)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 604
Glenny v. Langdon
MOTION to set aside an order dismissing an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohi.
Mr. J. L. Miner for the appellant, in support of the motion.
Mr. Stanley Matthews, 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
# Glenn v. United States (Hempst. 394)

Glenn v. United States, Hempst. 394, 10 F. Cas. 472 (D. Ark. 1849) (No. 5481), before the Hon. Benjamin Johnson, District Judge, and aff'd, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 250 (1852).
United States District Court for the District of Arkansas
Hempst. 394
JOHN GLENN and CHARLES M. THURSTON, claiming under Jacques Clamorgan, v. THE UNITED STATES
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
In district court.
In supreme court.
* In 1796, when Delassus was commandant of the post of New Madrid, he exercised the powers of sub-delegate, and had authority, under the instructions of the governor-general of Louisiana, to make conditional grants of land.
* He made a grant to Clamorgan, who stipulated on his part to introduce a colony from Canada to cultivate hemp and make cordage for the use of the king's vessels; but these conditions the grantee failed to perform.
* By the Spanish laws and ordinances, these conditions had to be performed before the grantee could obtain a perfect title. If the Spanish governor would have refused to complete the title, this court, acting under the laws of congress, must likewise refuse.
* After the cession of Louisiana to the United States in 1803, Clamorgan could not legally take any step to fulfil the conditions; and the case must be judged of as it stood the 3d March, 1804.
* The difference between this and Arredondo's case, 6 Peters, 706, explained.
* The cases of Arredondo, 6 Peters, 691; Soulard, 10 Ib. 100; Wiggins, 14 Ib. 334; Menard v. Massey, 8 How. 293; and Boisdoré, 11 How. 63, cited and approved.
April, 1849.—Petition in District Court, under act of 17th June, 1844, for the confirmation of a Spanish claim, determined before Hon. Benjamin Johnson, district judge.
Albert Pike and D. J. Baldwin, for petitioners.
S. H. Hempstead, district attorney, for the United States.
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
# Glenny v. Langdon (98 U.S. 20)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 20
Glenny v. Langdon
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. S. T. Crawford for the appellant, and by Mr. Stanley Matthews for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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
# Glenwood Light Water Company v. Mutual Light Heat & Power Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
239 U.S. 121
Glenwood Light Water Company v. Mutual Light Heat & Power Company
Argued: October 29, 1915. --- Decided: November 15, 1915
Messrs. Charles S. Thomas, George L. Nye, and William P. Malburn for appellant.
Mr. John T. Barnett for appellee.
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
# Flower Forbidden

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
As serialized in Smith's Magazine, April–June 1911.
Flower Forbidden
by
C. N. and A. M. Williamson
ILLUSTRATED BY SIGURD SCHOU
* PART I
** I. The End of the World
** II. Eastward
** III. The Watchdog
** IV. The Daughters of el Khadra
** V. Behind the White Wall
** VI. The Surprise
* PART II
** VII. The Eyes in a Dream
** VIII. The Will of Allah
** IX. The Watchdog
** X. The Correspondence of Laila
* PART III
** XII. The Moorish Bath—and After
** XII. Forbidden Flowers are Fairest
** XIII. How the Plan worked
** XIV. The Appeal
** XV. The Last Feast for the Bride
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 1933, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 90 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
# Flower Fables/Flower Fables

FLOWER FABLES.
The summer moon shone brightly down upon the sleeping earth, while far away from mortal eyes danced the Fairy folk. Fire-flies hung in bright clusters on the dewy leaves, that waved in the cool night-wind; and the flowers stood gazing, in very wonder, at the little Elves, who lay among the fern-leaves, swung in the vine-boughs, sailed on the lake in lily cups, or danced on the mossy ground, to the music of the hare-bells, who rung out their merriest peal in honor of the night.
Under the shade of a wild rose sat the Queen and her little Maids of Honor, beside the silvery mushroom where the feast was spread.
"Now, my friends," said she, "to wile away the time till the bright moon goes down, let ​us each tell a tale, or relate what we have done or learned this day. I will begin with you, Sunny Lock," added she, turning to a lovely little Elf, who lay among the fragrant leaves of a primrose.
With a gay smile, "Sunny Lock" began her story.
"As I was painting the bright petals of a blue bell, it told me this tale."
# Flower Fables/Fairy Song

FAIRY SONG.
The moonlight fades from flower and tree, And the stars dim one by one;
The tale is told, the song is sung,
And the Fairy feast is done.
The night-wind rocks the sleeping flowers,
And sings to them, soft and low.
The early birds erelong will wake:
'T is time for the Elves to go.
O'er the sleeping earth we silently pass,
Unseen by mortal eye,
And send sweet dreams, as we lightly float
Through the quiet moonlit sky;— For the stars' soft eyes alone may see,
And the flowers alone may know,
The feasts we hold, the tales we tell:
So 't is time for the Elves to go.
From bird, and blossom, and bee,
We learn the lessons they teach;
And seek, by kindly deeds, to win
A loving friend in each.
And though unseen on earth we dwell,
Sweet voices whisper low,
And gentle hearts most joyously greet
The Elves where'er they go.
When next me meet in the Fairy dell,
May the silver moon's soft light
Shine then on faces gay as now,
And Elfin hearts as light.
Now spread each wing, for the eastern sky
With sunlight soon will glow.
The morning star shall light us home:
Farewell! for the Elves must go.
As the music ceased, with a soft, rustling sound the Elves spread their shining wings, and flew silently over the sleeping earth; the flowers closed their bright eyes, the little winds were still, for the feast was over, and the Fairy lessons ended.
THE END.
# Hamdan v. Rumsfeld/Concurrence Breyer

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Breyer Kennedy
* Dissenting Opinions Scalia Thomas Alito
[p. 636] Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring.
The dissenters say that today's decision would "sorely hamper the President's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy." Post, at 705 (opinion of Thomas, J.). They suggest that it undermines our Nation's ability to "preven[t] future attacks" of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. Post, at 724. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a "blank check." Cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.
Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.
# Gilhooley's Estate

Oh, Mr Gilhooley he turned up his toes, As most of you know, soon or late; And Jones was a lawyer, as everyone knows, So they took him to Gilhooley's Estate.
Gilhooley in life had been living so free 'Twas thought his possessions were great, So Jones, with a smile, says, "There's many a fee For me in Gilhooley's Estate."
They made out a list of his property fine, It totalled a thousand-and-eight; But the debts were nine hundred and ninety-nine -- The debts of Gilhooley's Estate.
So Mrs Gilhooley says, "Jones, my dear man, My childer have little to ait: Just keep my expinses as low as you can Against poor Gilhooley's Estate."
Bur Jones says, "The will isn't clear in its terms, I fear it will need some debate, And the law won't alow me (attorneys are worms) To appear in Gilhooley's Estate."
So a barrister-man, with a wig on his head And a brief in his hand, quite elate, Went up to the Court where they bury the dead, Just to move in Gilhooley's Estate."
But his Honour the Judge said, "I think that the joint Legatees must be called to probate -- Ex parte Pokehorney is clear on the point -- The point of Gilhooley's Estate."
"I order a suit to be brought just to try If this is correct that I state -- A nice friendly suit -- and the costs by and by, Must be borne by Gilhooley's Estate."
So Mrs Gilhooley says, "Jones, you'll appear! Thim barristers' fees is too great; The suit is but friendly," "Attorneys, my dear, Can't be heard in Gilhooley's Estate."
From the barristers' quarter a mighty hurrah Arises both early and late: It's only the whoop of the Junior Bar Dividing Gilhooley's Estate.
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
# Gilfillan v. Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 401
Gilfillan v. Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania
J. Duval Rodney, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas Hart, Jr., for defendant in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# Garfield v. United States ex rel Allison/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 264
Garfield v. United States ex rel Allison
Argued: October 15, 16, 1908. ---
These cases were argued and submitted with the Goldsby Case, No. 248, just decided. [Garfield v. United States, 211 U.S. 249, 53 L. ed.-, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62.] In the case of George A. Allison, a patent had been issued for his lands and duly recorded. In the case of Ida Allison, an allotment certificate had been issued.
The relators are Cherokees, but the legislation herein involved is not different from that governing allotments to members of the Chickasaw Nation.
The Allisons made application to the commission for admission to citizenship under the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat. at L. 321, chap. 398). Their applications were denied and no appeal taken. Afterwards a decision by the commission, granting the application of the Allisons for enrolment as citizens by blood, was affirmed by the Department of the Interior as of April 16, 1904. Their names were summarily stricken from the rolls by the Department's order of March 4, 1907. The cases are controlled by the decision in Goldsby's Case.
Judgments affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Garfield v. United States ex rel Allison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
211 U.S. 264
Garfield v. United States ex rel Allison
Argued: October 15, 16, 1908. ---
Assistant Attorney General Fowler, Attorney General Bonaparte, and Mr. William R. Harr for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Charles H. Merillat, Charles J. Kappler, and James K. Jones for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Gardner v. Toilet Goods Association, Inc.

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 167
Gardner v. Toilet Goods Association, Inc.
Argued: May 22, 1967, May 29, 1967. ---
Nathan Lewin, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Edward J. Ross, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 215
Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.
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
# Harrington v. California

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 250
Glen Martin HARRINGTON, Petitioner, v. State of CALIFORNIA.
Argued: April 23, 1969. --- Decided: June 2, 1969
Roger S. Hanson, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
James H. Kline, San Marino, Cal., 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