OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Searl v. School-Dist. No. 2, in Lake Co.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 197
Searl v. School-Dist. No. 2, in Lake Co.
Sam B. Rose, F. W. Owens, A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, and Walter H. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
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
# Searight v. Stokes

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    McLean
    Daniel
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 151
Searight v. Stokes

## 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
# Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Stiffel Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 225
Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Stiffel Company
Argued: Jan. 16, 1964. --- Decided: March 9, 1964
See 376 U.S. 973, 84 S.Ct. 1131.
Will Freeman, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Warren C. Horton, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 37

XXXVII.
As a decrepit father takes delight To see his active child do deeds of youth, So I, made lame by fortune's dearest spite, Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth; For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, Or any of these all, or all, or more, Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit, I make my love engrafted to this store. So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd, Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give That I in thy abundance am suffic'd And by a part of all thy glory live. Look, what is best, that best I wish in thee: This wish I have; then ten times happy me!
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 42

XLII.
That thou hast her, it is not all my grief, And yet it may be said I lov'd her dearly; That she hath thee, is of my wailing chief, A loss in love that touches me more nearly. Loving offenders, thus I will excuse ye: Thou dost love her, because thou know'st I love her; And for my sake even so doth she abuse me, Suffering my friend for my sake to approve her. If I lose thee, my loss is my love's gain, And losing her, my friend hath found that loss; Both find each other, and I lose both twain, And both for my sake lay on me this cross: But here's the joy; my friend and I are one; Sweet flattery! then she loves but me alone.
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 4

IV.
Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend Upon thy self thy beauty's legacy? Nature's bequest gives nothing, but doth lend, And being frank she lends to those are free. Then, beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse The bounteous largess given thee to give? Profitless usurer, why dost thou use So great a sum of sums, yet canst not live? For having traffic with thyself alone, Thou of thyself thy sweet self dost deceive. Then how, when nature calls thee to be gone, What acceptable audit canst thou leave? Thy unus'd beauty must be tomb'd with thee, Which, used, lives th' executor to be.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 40

XL.
Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all; What hast thou then more than thou hadst before? No love, my love, that thou mayst true love call; All mine was thine before thou hadst this more. Then if for my love thou my love receivest, I cannot blame thee for my love thou usest; But yet be blam'd, if thou thyself deceivest By wilful taste of what thyself refusest. I do forgive thy robbery, gentle thief, Although thou steal thee all my poverty; And yet, love knows, it is a greater grief To bear love's wrong than hate's known injury. Lascivious grace, in whom all ill well shows, Kill me with spites; yet we must not be foes.
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 34

XXXIV.
Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day And make me travel forth without my cloak, To let base clouds o'ertake me in my way, Hiding thy bravery in their rotten smoke? 'Tis not enough that through the cloud thou break, To dry the rain on my storm-beaten face, For no man well of such a salve can speak That heals the wound and cures not the disgrace: Nor can thy shame give physic to my grief; Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss: The offender's sorrow lends but weak relief To him that bears the strong offence's cross. Ah! but those tears are pearl which thy love sheds, And they are rich and ransom all ill deeds.
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 36

XXXVI.
Let me confess that we two must be twain, Although our undivided loves are one; So shall those blots that do with me remain Without thy help by me be borne alone. In our two loves there is but one respect, Though in our lives a separable spite, Which though it alter not love's sole effect, Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love's delight. I may not evermore acknowledge thee, Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame, Nor thou with public kindness honour me, Unless thou take that honour from thy name: But do not so; I love thee in such sort As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 38

XXXVIII.
How can my Muse want subject to invent, While thou dost breathe, that pour'st into my verse Thine own sweet argument, too excellent For every vulgar paper to rehearse? O, give thyself the thanks, if aught in me Worthy perusal stand against thy sight; For who 's so dumb that cannot write to thee, When thou thyself dost give invention light? Be thou the tenth Muse, ten times more in worth Than those old nine which rhymers invocate; And he that calls on thee, let him bring forth Eternal numbers to outlive long date. If my slight muse do please these curious days, The pain be mine, but thine shall be the praise.
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 39

XXXIX.
O, how thy worth with manners may I sing, When thou art all the better part of me? What can mine own praise to mine own self bring? And what is 't but mine own when I praise thee? Even for this let us divided live, And our dear love lose name of single one, That by this separation I may give That due to thee which thou deserv'st alone. O absence, what a torment wouldst thou prove, Were it not thy sour leisure gave sweet leave To entertain the time with thoughts of love, Which time and thoughts so sweetly doth deceive, And that thou teachest how to make one twain, By praising him here who doth hence remain!
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 35

XXXV.
No more be griev'd at that which thou hast done: Roses have thorns, and silver fountains mud; Clouds and eclipses stain both moon and sun, And loathsome canker lives in sweetest bud. All men make faults, and even I in this, Authorizing thy trespass with compare, Myself corrupting, salving thy amiss, Excusing thy sins more than thy sins are; For to thy sensual fault I bring in sense— Thy adverse party is thy advocate— And 'gainst myself a lawful plea commence. Such civil war is in my love and hate That I an accessary needs must be To that sweet thief which sourly robs from me.
# Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883)/Sonnet 41

XLI.
Those pretty wrongs that liberty commits, When I am sometime absent from thy heart, Thy beauty and thy years full well befits, For still temptation follows where thou art. Gentle thou art and therefore to be won, Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed; And when a woman woos, what woman's son Will sourly leave her till he have prevailed? Ay me! but yet thou mightst my seat forbear, And chide thy beauty and thy straying youth, Who lead thee in their riot even there Where thou art forc'd to break a twofold truth,— Hers, by thy beauty tempting her to thee, Thine, by thy beauty being false to me.
# Reynolds v. Adden

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
136 U.S. 348
Reynolds v. Adden
Gus. A. Breaux, for appellant.
A. V. Lynde and A. A. Ranney, for appellees.
BRADLEY, 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
# Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 207
Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
Argued: Jan. 10, 1949. --- Decided: Feb 14, 1949
Mr. J. Kirkman Jackson, of Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner.
Mr. Peyton D. Bibb, of Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Robertson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 563
Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Robertson
Messrs. Charles L. Black and Ireland Graves, both of Austin, Tex., for petitioners.

## 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
# Reynolds v. Burns/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
141 U.S. 117
Reynolds v. Burns
The object of this bill is to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment in ejectment upon the ground that, while the plaintiffs in such judgment held the legal title to the lands in dispute, the equitable title was in the defendants, the plaintiffs in this bill. Curtly stated, the facts are that America A. Bowie, the widow and executrix of her husband, John W. Bowie, who was also heir at law to her two sons, and a creditor of the estate of her husband to the amount of $6,234.41, executed a deed of her interest in his estate to her daughter, Martha B. Leatherman, (now Burns,) upon condition that the grantee should pay her an annuity of $400 per year, and provide her with a home during her life, and with a reservation of power to sell, upon 30 days' notice, in case of failure to perform the condition. The grantee did not pay the annuity or perform her covenants, and Mrs. Bowie, without taking any steps to obtain the annulment of the deed, or the reconveyance of the property, assumed to sell under the power contained in the deed, and did sell at public auction to the plaintiff Reynolds one parcel, for $1,180; to the plaintiff Springer another, for $40.50; to the plaintiff Halley another, for $71,-all of whom received their deeds and entered into possession. Mrs. Burns and her husband thereupon brought ejectment and obtained judgment, to enjoin which this bill was filed.
* From this brief statement of facts it is entirely clear that this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. There is no allegation or proof of the value of the property recovered in the ejectment suit, the only showing being that the aggregate amount paid by the three plaintiffs for their parcels was $1,291.50. The only allegation of value is that the whole estate was 'not worth $6,000,' though how much less it was worth is not stated. It further appears that plaintiffs' deeds did not cover the whole of such estate, and that the amount due and unpaid upon the annuity at the time these sales were made was about $1,300.
Under no possible theory can the case be said to involve the amount exceeding $5,000 requisite to give this court jurisdiction, and the appeal must therefor be 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
# Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Robertson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 563
Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Robertson
For opinion below, see 93 F.2d 542.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Rehearing denied 304 U.S. 589, 58 S.Ct. 1037, 82 L.Ed. --.

## 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
# Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo (357 F. Supp. 2d 1378)

* related portals: United States case law.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TAMPA DIVISION
357 F. Supp. 2d 1378
THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, Incapacitated ex rel., ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY SCHINDLER, her Parents and Next Friends, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, JUDGE GEORGE W. GREER and THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, INC., Defendants.
No. 8:05-CV-530-T-27TBM
Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order denied.
For Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, her parents and next friends, Plaintiff: David C. Gibbs, III, Gibbs Law Firm, Seminole, FL; George E. Tragos, Law Office of George E. Tragos, Clearwater, FL; Robert A. Destro, Columbus School Of Law, Washington, DC.
For Michael Schiavo as guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, incapacitated, Defendant: George J. Felos, Felos & Felos, P.A., Dunedin, FL; Iris Bennett, Jenner & Block LLC, Washington, DC; Randall C. Marshall, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., Miami, FL; Rebecca H. Steele, ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc., West Central Florida Office, Tampa, FL; Robert M. Portman, Thomas J. Perrelli, Jenner & Block LLC, Washington, DC.
For Judge George W. Greer, Defendant: Barry A. Cohen, Cohen, Jayson & Foster, P.A., Tampa, FL.
For The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, Inc., Defendant: Gail Golman Holtzman, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Tampa, FL; John W. Campbell, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Tampa, FL; Robin G. Midulla, Robin Greiwe Midulla, P.A., Tampa, FL.
For Liberty Counsel, Inc., Amicus: Erik W. Stanley, Liberty Counsel, Longwood, FL.
For United States, Interested Party: Paul I. Perez, U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida, Orlando, FL; Warren A. Zimmerman, U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida, Tampa, FL.
For Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., Victor E. Gambone, M.D., Morton Plant Mease Primary Care, Inc., Stanton P. Tripodis, M.D., Interested Parties: James Addison Martin, Jr., Jeffrey W. Gibson, Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, Clearwater, FL.
Gordon Wayne Watts, Interested Party, Pro se, Lakeland, FL.
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, United States District Judge.
# Schilb v. Kuebel/Concurrence Marshall

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Marshall
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Stewart
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 357
Schilb v. Kuebel
Argued: Oct. 12, 1971. --- Decided: Dec 20, 1971
Mr. Justice MARSHALL, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court with a few additional words.
All agree that the central purpose of the statute was to restrict severely the activities of professional bail bondsmen who had customarily collected 10% of the amount of each bond as a fee and retained all of it regardless of what happened. All agree that the new scheme is, in general, an admirable attempt to reduce the cost of liberty for those awaiting trial.
The new scheme dealt only with the class of which appellant Schilb was a member-those persons charged with crimes who under the old system were relegated to professional bondsmen who along with other requirements charged a 10% fee for the bond regardless of the outcome of the case. This is the only class affected by the new scheme. Members of this class now pay 1% instead of 10%. In the evolving struggle for meaningful bail reform I cannot find the present Illinois move toward that objective to be unconstitutional.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

## 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
# Schick v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
195 U.S. 65
Schick v. United States
Argued: December 2, 1903. --- Decided: May 31, 1904
Messrs. William D. Guthrie and Francis J. Kearful for plaintiffs in error.
Solicitor General Hoyt for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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
# Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo (403 F.3d 1223)

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Per Curiam Decision
* Dissenting Opinion Wilson
* 403 F.3d 1223
* THERESA MARIA SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, her parents and next friends, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
* v.
* MICHAEL SCHIAVO, as guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, incapacitated, JUDGE GEORGE W. GREER, THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
* No. 05-11556
* United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
* March 23, 2005, Decided
* March 23, 2005, Filed
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D. C. Docket No. CV-05-00530-T. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1378(M.D. Fla., 2005)
AFFIRMED; PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DENIED.
For Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, Appellant: David C. Gibbs, III, Gibbs Law Firm, P.A., Seminole, FL.
Before CARNES, HULL, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/Measure, for Measure/Act 2 Scene 3

Scena Tertia.
Enter Duke and Prouost.
Duke.
Haile to you, Prouost, so I thinke you are.
Pro. I am the Prouost: whats your will, good Frier?
Duke.
Bound by my charity, and my blest order, I come to visite the afflicted spirits Here in the prison: doe me the common right To let me see them: and to make me know The nature of their crimes, that I may minister To them accordingly.
Pro. I would do more then that, if more were needfull.
Enter Iuliet.
Who falling in the flawes of her owne youth, Hath blisterd her report: She is with childe, And he that got it, sentenc'd: a yong man, More fit to doe another such offence, Then dye for this.
Duk. When must he dye?
Pro. As I do thinke to morrow. I haue prouided for you, stay a while And you shall be conducted.
Duk. Repent you (faire one) of the sin you carry?
Iul. I doe; and beare the shame most patiently.
Du.
Ile teach you how you shal araign your consciẽce And try your penitence, if it be sound, Or hollowly put on.
Iul. Ile gladly learne.
Duk. Loue you the man that wrong'd you?
Iul. Yes, as I loue the woman that wrong'd him.
Duk. So then it seemes your most offence full act Was mutually committed.
Iul. Mutually.
Duk. Then was your sin of heauier kinde then his.
Iul. I doe confesse it, and repent it (Father.)
Duk. 'Tis meet so (daughter) but least you do repent As that the sin hath brought you to this shame, Which sorrow is alwaies toward our selues, not heauen, Showing we would not spare heauen, as we loue it, But as we stand in feare.
Iul. I doe repent me, as it is an euill, And take the shame with ioy.
Duke. There rest: Your partner (as I heare) must die to morrow, And I am going with instruction to him: Grace goe with you, Benedicite. Exit.
Iul. Must die to morrow? oh iniurious Loue That respits me a life, whose very comfort Is still a dying horror.
Pro. 'Tis pitty of him. Exeunt.
Layout 2
# Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)/Measure, for Measure/Act 1 Scene 4

Scena Quarta.
Enter Duke and Frier Thomas.
Duk. No: holy Father, throw away that thought, Beleeue not that the dribling dart of Loue Can pierce a compleat bosome: why, I desire thee To giue me secret harbour, hath a purpose More graue, and wrinkled, then the aimes, and ends Of burning youth.
Fri. May your Grace speake of it?
Duk. My holy Sir, none better knowes then you How I haue euer lou'd the life remoued And held in idle price, to haunt assemblies Where youth, and cost, witlesse brauery keepes. I haue deliuerd to Lord Angelo (A man of stricture and firme abstinence) My absolute power, and place here in Vienna, And he supposes me trauaild to Poland, (For so I haue strewd it in the common eare) And so it is receiu'd: Now (pious Sir) You will demand of me, why I do this.
Fri. Gladly, my Lord.
Duk. We haue strict Statutes, and most biting Laws, (The needfull bits and curbes to headstrong weedes,) Which for this foureteene yeares, we haue let slip, Euen like an ore-growne Lyon in a Caue That goes not out to prey: Now, as fond Fathers, Hauing bound vp the threatning twigs of birch, Onely to sticke it in their childrens sight, For terror, not to vse: in time the rod More mock'd, then fear'd: so our Decrees, Dead to infliction, to themselues are dead, And libertie, plucks Iustice by the nose; The Baby beates the Nurse, and quite athwart Goes all decorum.
Fri. It rested in your Grace To vnloose this tyde-vp Iustice, when you pleas'd: And it in you more dreadfull would haue seem'd Then in Lord Angelo.
Duk. I doe feare: too dreadfull: Sith 'twas my fault, to giue the people scope, 'Twould be my tirrany to strike and gall them, For what I bid them doe: For, we bid this be done When euill deedes haue their permissiue passe, And not the punishment: therefore indeede (my father) I haue on Angelo impos'd the office, Who may in th' ambush of my name, strike home, And yet, my nature neuer in the sight To do in slander: And to behold his sway I will, as 'twere a brother of your Order, Visit both Prince, and People: Therefore I pre'thee Supply me with the habit, and instruct me How I may formally in person beare Like a true Frier: Moe reasons for this action At our more leysure, shall I render you; Onely, this one: Lord Angelo is precise, Stands at a guard with Enuie: scarce confesses That his blood flowes: or that his appetite Is more to bread then stone: hence shall we see If power change purpose: what our Seemers be.Exit.
Layout 2
# Robertoy v. Michigan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 519
Robertoy v. Michigan
Arthur J. Robertoy, pro se.
Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen. of Mich., and Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 64
Roberts v. Benjamin
Jas. B. Perkins, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 65 intentionally omitted]
Matthew Hale and Esek Cowan, for defendants in error.
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