OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# New Jersey Steamboat Company v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 478
New Jersey Steamboat Company v. The Collector
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York.
The New Jersey Steamboat Company had a night-line of steamboats which ran between New York and Albany, and which paid tonnage duty in conformity with the laws of the United States. The boats were furnished with berths and state-rooms. But it was not obligatory on passengers going on the boats to take either. They might pay for a passage only, that is to say pay for the 'bare right' to be on the boat, while it was going from one place to the other, in which case they would have to sit up all night; or they might pay in addition to the passage-money a certain sum, in which case they had the privilege to occupy a berth or a state-room. The accounts of passage-money received were kept distinct from those of money received for berths or state-rooms.
In this state of things, the collector of the United States at New York, asserting that he was justified by the ninth section of an act of Congress of July 13th, 1866, hereinafter set forth, demanded from the company the sum of $7972.66, which he alleged to be a tax assessed at the rate of 2 1/2 per cent. on the company's 'gross receipts from passengers' during the summer of 1869.
For the transportation of passengers (passage-money),. $4831
For berths or state-rooms, ........ 3140

## 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
# New Jersey Zinc Company v. Trotter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 564
New Jersey Zinc Company v. Trotter
John Linn, for plaintiff in error.
Courtlandt Parker and R. Mayne Parker, 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
# New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants' Bank of Boston

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
47 U.S. 344
New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants' Bank of Boston

## 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
# Nearer and Dearer/Contents

CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
CHAPTER XII.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHAPTER XV.
CHAPTER XVI.
CHAPTER XVII.
CHAPTER XVIII.
# Nearer and Dearer

NEARER AND DEARER.
LONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET.
‘He was playing billiards in a savage, careless way–missing and making “flukes,” and forcing his antagonist to come off the conqueror.’–Page 7.
NEARER AND DEARER:
A Tale out of School.
“Has she a Brother? Has she a nearer one Still, and a dearer one Yet than all other?”–Hood.
A NOVELETTE,
By CUTHBERT BEDE, B. A., AUTHOR OF “VERDANT GREEN.”
LONDON: RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET. 1857.
[Right of Translation and Dramatic adaptation reserved.]
WITH MUCH AFFECTION,
I DEDICATE THIS LITTLE TALE
TO MY UNCLE,
W. B.,
WHO HAS SHEWN MUCH INTEREST
IN THIS NOVELETTE,
BUT FAR MORE IN
ITS AUTHOR.
June, 1857.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
CHAPTER XII.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHAPTER XV.
CHAPTER XVI.
CHAPTER XVII.
CHAPTER XVIII.
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
# Nearer and Dearer/Dedication

WITH MUCH AFFECTION,
I DEDICATE THIS LITTLE TALE
TO MY UNCLE,
W. B.,
WHO HAS SHEWN MUCH INTEREST
IN THIS NOVELETTE,
BUT FAR MORE IN
ITS AUTHOR.
June, 1857.
# Nearer my God to thee (unsourced)

* related portals: Song lyrics.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
"Nearer, my God, to Thee" is a 19th century Christian hymn based loosely on Genesis 28:11-19, the story of Jacob's dream.
Text by Sarah Flower Adams. Most common arrangement by Lowell Mason Nearer, my God, to Thee. - MIDI Format Nearer my God to Thee in The Army and Navy Hymnal
Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer to Thee E'en though it be a cross That raiseth me, Still all my song shall be, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer to Thee.
Tho' like a wanderer, The sun gone down, Darkness be over me, My rest a stone, Yet in my dreams I'll be Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer to Thee.
There let the way appear, Steps unto heaven; All that Thou sendest me In mercy be given, Angels to beckon me Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer to Thee.
Then with my waking thoughts Bright with Thy praise, Out of my stony griefs Bethel I'll raise; So by my woes to be Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer to Thee.
Or if, on joyful wing Cleavihg the sky, Sun, moon, and stars forgot, Upward I fly, Still all my song shall be, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer, my God, to Thee, Nearer to Thee.
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
# Neblahé sejití

* related portals: Czech literature.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Poem from the collection Ohlas písní českých (Echoes of Bohemian songs)
English-language translations of Neblahé sejití include:
# Neblett v. Carpenter

United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 297
Neblett v. Carpenter
Argued: Oct. 18, 1938. --- Decided: Dec 5, 1938
See 305 U.S. 675, 59 S.Ct. 355, 83 L.Ed.--.
Messrs. Wm. H. Neblett and R. Dean Warner, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., and Hester W. Webb and U.S. Webb, both of San Francisco, Cal.,
[Argument of Counsel from page 298 intentionally omitted] for respondents.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 105
National Labor Relations Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation
Argued: April 8, 1942. --- Decided: April 27, 1942
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Ernest A. Gross, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. C. C. Parsons, of Salt Lake City, Utah, 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. News Syndicate Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 695
National Labor Relations Board v. News Syndicate Company
Argued: March 1, 1961. --- Decided: April 17, 1961
Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John R. Schoemer, Jr., New York City, for respondent News Syndicate Co., Inc.
Mr. Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Washington, D.C., for respondent New York Mailers' Union No. 6, International Typographical Union AFL-CIO.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
308 U.S. 241
National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company
Argued: Nov. 6, 7, 1939. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1939
Messrs. Frank Murphy, Atty. Gen., and Charles Fahy, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. H. H. Rumble, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Frank A. Kearney, of Phoebus, Va., for Employees' Representative Committee, Intervener.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County/Dissent Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Stewart
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 600
National Labor Relations Board v. Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County
Argued: April 20, 1971. --- Decided: June 1, 1971
Mr. Justice STEWART, dissenting.
I agree with the Court that federal, rather than state, law governs the determination of whether an employer is a 'political subdivision' of the State within the meaning of § 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2). But I cannot agree that the Board erred in this case in concluding that the respondent is not entitled to exemption under the Act.
In determining that the respondent Utility District was not a 'political subdivision' of the State, the Board followed its settled policy of weighing all relevant factors, with particular emphasis here on the circumstances that the District is neither 'created directly by the State' nor 'administered by State-appointed or elected officials' and is 'autonomous in the conduct of its day-to-day affairs.' On the other side, the Board gave less weight to the State's characterization of a utility district as an arm of the State for purposes of exemption from state taxes and conferral of the power of eminent domain.
This approach seems wholly acceptable to me, inasmuch as state tax exemption and the power of eminent domain are not attributes peculiar to political subdivisions nor attributes with any discernible impact on labor relations. Attributes which would implicate labor policy, such as the payment of wages out of public funds or restrictions upon the right of the employees to strike, are not present here.
The Court points to provisions that the records of the District be available for public inspection, and that the commissioners of the District hold hearings and make written findings. These factors are said to 'betoken a state, rather than a private, instrumentality.' The question, however, is not whether the District is a state instrumentality, but whether it is a 'political subdivision' of the State. And the provisions in question hardly go to that issue.
The Board's reasonable construction of the Act is entitled to great weight and it is not our function to weigh the facts de novo and displace its evaluation with our own. The Board here has made a reasoned decision which does not violence to the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case with instructions to enforce the Board's order.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 105
National Labor Relations Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation
Argued: April 8, 1942. --- Decided: April 27, 1942
In this case the National Labor Relations Board found that respondent, in refusing to reemploy a number of its former employees and to employ two new applicants, had discriminated against them in order to discourage membership in a labor union in violation of § 8(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The Board made its order directing employment of these individuals with back pay. The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board's order on the ground that its findings were without substantial support in the evidence. 10 Cir., 122 F.2d 587.
Examination of the record discloses that there was substantial evidence from which the Board could have concluded that respondent's refusal to employ the men was motivated by its belief that they had engaged or threatened to engage in destruction of respondent's property and had threatened to injure some of respondent's managerial employees and members of their families. There was also substantial evidence from which the Board could have concluded, as it did, that respondent's motive for refusing the employment was discouragement of membership in a labor union. The possibility of drawing either of two inconsistent inferences from the evidence did not prevent the Board from drawing one of them, as the court below seems to have thought.
We have repeatedly held that Congress, by providing, § 10(c), (e) and (f), of the National Labor Relations Act, that the Board's findings 'as to the Facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive', precludes the courts from weighing evidence in reviewing the Board's orders, and if the findings of the Board are supported by evidence the courts are not free to set them aside even though the Board could have drawn different inferences. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368, and cases cited; Labor Board v. Automotive Maintenance Mach. Co., 315 U.S. 282, 62 S.Ct. 608, 86 L.Ed. --; cf. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd., v. United States, 300 U.S. 297, 307, 57 S.Ct. 478, 482, 81 L.Ed. 659; Fed. Trade Comm. v. Pacific States Paper Trade Ass'n, 273 U.S. 52, 63, 47 S.Ct. 255, 258, 71 L.Ed. 534; Fed. Trade Comm. v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 73, 54 S.Ct. 315, 318, 78 L.Ed. 655. Since upon an examination of the record we cannot say that the findings of fact of the Board are without support in the evidence, the judgment below must be reversed with directions to enforce the Board's order, but with the modification proposed by the Board to conform to our decision in Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board, 311 U.S. 7, 61 S.Ct. 77, 85 L.Ed. 6.
So ordered.
Reversed with directions.

## 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
# New Orleans Railway Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 124
New Orleans Railway Company v. United States
John S. Blair, John F. Dillon, and Wager Swayne, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Garland and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for appellee.
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
# New Orleans Public Service Inc v. Council of City of New Orleans/Concurrence Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Brennan Blackmun
Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion. I continue to adhere to my view, however, that the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), is in general inapplicable to civil proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 19, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 1530, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 450, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 1921, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 341, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 1220, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 613, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 1212, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting).
Chief Justice REHNQUIST, concurring in Parts I and II-B and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that our prior cases extending Younger beyond criminal prosecutions to civil proceedings have limited its application to proceedings which are "judicial in nature," and that, under our longstanding characterization of the distinction between "judicial" and "legislative" proceedings, see Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908), the Council's ratemaking proceedings at issue here were not judicial in nature. Under these circumstances, I agree that Younger abstention is inappropriate, despite the pendency of state-court review of the Council's ratemaking order. Nothing in the Court's opinion curtails our prior application of Younger to certain administrative proceedings which are "judicial in nature," see Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986); Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982); nor does it alter our prior case law indicating that such proceedings should be regarded as "ongoing" for the purposes of Younger abstention until state appellate review is completed, see Dayton Christian Schools, supra, 477 U.S., at 629, 106 S.Ct., at 2723-2724. With this understanding, I join the portion of the Court's opinion holding that Younger abstention is inappropriate here.
I agree with the Court's conclusion that Burford abstention is inappropriate on the facts of this case. But I would not foreclose the possibility of Burford abstention in a case like this had the State consolidated review of the orders of local ratemaking bodies in a specialized state court with power to hear a federal pre-emption claim. Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment as to Burford abstention.

## 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
# New Orleans Public Service v. City of New Orleans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 682
New Orleans Public Service v. City of New Orleans
Argued: April 30, 1930. --- Decided: June 2, 1930
Messrs. Al C. Kammer and Charles Rosen, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Messrs. Francis P. Burns and W. F. Conkerton, both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 683 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
# New Orleans Taxpayers' Protective Association v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 33
New Orleans Taxpayers' Protective Association v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
Argued: March 11, 1915. --- Decided: April 5, 1915
Mr. Charles Louque for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 34 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Walter L. Gleason and Isaiah D. Moore for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 35 intentionally omitted]
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Holmes:

## 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
# Moondyne/The Koagulup Swamp

We arrive now at the opening scene of this story. Eight days after his escape from Fremantle, Moondyne was seen by the convict Dave Terrell, on the shores of the Koagulup Swamp. In those eight days he had travelled two hundred miles, suffering that which is only known to the hunted convict. When he met the prisoner in the moonlight and made the motion to silence, Dave Terrell saw the long barrel of a pistol in his belt. He meant to sell his life this time, for there was no hope if retaken.
His intention was to hide in the swamp till he found an opportunity of striking into the Vasse Mountains, a spur of which was not more than sixty miles distant.
But the way of the absconder is perilous; and swift as had been Moondyne's flight, the shadow of the pursuer was close behind. No tardy step was that of him who led the pursuit of a man with a terribly maimed face—a new officer of the penal system, but whose motive in the pursuit was deadlier and dearer than the love of public duty.
On the very day that Moondyne Joe reached the great swamp, the mounted pursuit tracked the fugitive to the water's edge. A few hours later, while he lay exhausted on an island in the densely-wooded morass, the long sedge was cautiously divided a few yards from his face, and the glittering eyes of a native tracker met his for an instant. Before he could spring to his feet the supple savage was upon him, sending out his bush cry as he sprang! A short struggle, with the black hands on the white throat; then the great white arms closed around the black body, and with a gasping sob it lost its nerve and lay still, while Moondyne half rose to listen.
From every point he heard the trackers closing on him. He sank back with a moan of despair; but the next instant the blood rushed from his heart with a new vigour for every muscle.
It was the last breath of his freedom, and he would fight for it as for his life. He sprang to his feet and met his first brutal assailant, a native dog—half-wolf, half-greyhound—which sprang at his throat, but sank its fangs in his shoulder.
A bullet through the animal's brain left him free again, with steadied nerves. Even in the excitement of the moment a thrill of gratitude that it was not a man that lay there passed through him; He flung his pistol into the swamp, and dashed towards the log on which he had gained the island. Beside it stood two men, armed. Barehanded, the fugitive flung himself upon them, and closed in desperate struggle. It was vain, however; others came and struck him down and overpowered him.
He was put in irons, and found himself in charge of the most brutal officer in the penal service—his old fellow-convict and employer, Isaac Bowman.