OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# McCarroll v. Dixie Greyhound Lines

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
309 U.S. 176
McCarroll v. Dixie Greyhound Lines
Argued: Dec. 14, 1939. --- Decided: Feb 12, 1940
See 309 U.S. 696, 60 S.Ct. 610, 84 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Frank Pace, Jr., of Little Rock, Ark., and Amos M. Mathews, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Messrs. Walter Chandler and A. L. Heiskell, both of Memphis, Tenn., for respondent.
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
# McCart v. Indianapolis Water Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 419
McCart v. Indianapolis Water Company
Argued: Dec. 15, 1937. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1938
Mr. Urban C. Stover, Dep. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
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
# McCann v. Babbitz/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 1
McCann v. Babbitz
The appeal is dismissed. Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427, 90 S.Ct. 1763, 26 L.Ed.2d 378, and Gunn v. University Committee to End War in Viet Nam, 399 U.S. 383, 90 S.Ct. 2013, 26 L.Ed.2d 684.

## 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
# McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
272 U.S. 400
McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Company
Argued: Nov. 22, 1926. ---
[Syllabus from pages 400-402 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Edward M. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., both of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant Public Service Commission of Indiana.
Messrs. James M. Ogden, Corp. Counsel, Taylor E. Groninger, and Clair McTurnan, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant City of Indianapolis.
Messrs. William L. Ransom, of New York City, Joseph J. Daniels, of Indianapolis, Ind., Phillip Barton Warren, of Springfield, Ill., Albert Baker, of Indianapolis, Ind., and W. A. McInerny, of South Bend, Ind., for appellee.
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
# Lomax v. Pickering

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
173 U.S. 26
Lomax v. Pickering
This was an action of ejectment brought by Aquila H. Pickering against John A. Lomax and William Kolze to recover possession of two parcels of land in Cook county, Ill., which had originally been granted by the United States to certain Indians, under the treaty of Prairie du Chien, of July 29, 1829.
This case was before this court upon a former hearing (Pickering v. Lomax, 145 U.S. 310, 12 Sup. Ct. 860), the report of which contains a full statement of the facts, which need not be here repeated. Upon that hearing the judgment of the supreme court of Illinois was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, which resulted in a judgment for Pickering, the plaintiff, and in an affirmance of that judgment by the supreme court of Illinois. Lomax v. Pickering, 165 Ill. 431, 46 N. E. 238. To review this judgment a second writ of error was sued out from this court.
J. M. H. Burgett, for plaintiff in error.
John P. Ahrens, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market

* related portals: Economic theory.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
One of the first accessible books on international finance, written in 1873
THE LOMBARD STREET LIBRARY
LOMBARD STREET
LOMBARD STREET
A DESCRIPTION OF THE MONEY MARKET
By WALTER BAGEHOT
NEW EDITION WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
HARTLEY WITHERS
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1917
PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED
LONDON AND BECCLES, ENGLAND.
All rights reserved
​* * * Like the English Constitution, the English credit system is a living thing, that has grown out of its past and is growing into its future. Past, present, and future are thus one continuing process, and no one can hope to understand its present, still less to peer into its future, unless he knows something of the past that is part of them. Bagehot's "Lombard Street" lights up, with the fire of its author's genius, the road that we have travelled, and helps us to see where we are and to wonder whither we are going. Its usefulness, as a work of reference and a standard of comparison, has been enhanced in this new edition by a careful revision of the Notes, carried out by Mr. A. W. Wright, a member of the staff of the Economist newspaper, long edited by Bagehot.
Hartley Withers.
February, 1915.
PREFATORY NOTE TO THE
TWELFTH EDITION
As more than thirty years have elapsed since the first publication of this little book, it has been thought desirable to bring the figures, and some of the examples used, up to the present time.
My best thanks are due to the friend who has placed his services at my disposal for this purpose.
The new matter is confined to notes, and the text of the original work has not been touched.
Eliza Bagehot.
May, 1906.
PREFATORY NOTE TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION
In this Edition additional Notes have been inserted by Mr. E. Johnstone, in Appendix II., and the other Notes have been revised by him, so as to bring up the work to the present date.
July, 1899.
APPENDIX I
By Walter Bagehot
APPENDIX II
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
# McVeigh v. United States (75 U.S. 640)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
75 U.S. 640
McVeigh v. United States

## 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
# McVeigh v. United States (75 U.S. 640)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
75 U.S. 640
McVeigh v. United States
Mr. Assistant-Attorney Field, for the United States, moved to dismiss this case for imperfection in the writ, an exhibition of which showed that it was dated December 2d, 1868, and was returnable to 'the 3d Monday of December next.' But a production by Mr. Cushing, contra, of the citation, showed that it commanded the party to 'be and appear at a Supreme Court of the United States on the 3d Monday of December instant, pursuant to a writ of error filed in the clerk's office, &c.' And he argued that the citation was in fact the effective document, and the issuing of the writ but an antiquated and really useless ceremony, practised still but from deference to ancient form; that accordingly the writ might be amended by the citation. C. A. V.
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
# McVeigh v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "McVeigh v. United States."
* 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.
* McVeigh v. United States (75 U.S. 640)
* McVeigh v. United States (78 U.S. 259)
# McVeaugh v. Goods

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
M’Veaugh versus Goods.
Certain goods of British manufacture being imported into the County of Philadelphia, contrary to the Act of Assembly, passed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed against them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the case were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled.
In support of the information one Scull was called as a witness, who, being examined on the voire dire, said that he assisted in making a seizure of the goods; and, in case they were condemned, but not otherwise, he expected some compensation from M’Veaugh’s generosity, although he had received no certain promise of that kind.
Lewis, for the Claimants, contended against the admission of Scull’s testimony; and urged that if a man, who is not, in fact, interested, apprehends himself to be so, he will naturally be biassed in favor of the side, on which he presumes his interest to lie; which is a sufficient cause to disqualify him as a witness. See Stra. 129.
Sergeant, for the informant, likened this to the case of an heir, who expects to be benefitted by his Father’s estate, yet as that really depends on the will and pleasure of the father, it is no ground to prevent his being a witness. Scull has no certainty of reward; he has not even a promise; and, whatever may be his expectations, the matter still depends entirely on the will and pleasure of the informant.
But, By the Court:—It nearly concerns the administration of justice, that witnesses should be free from every kind of biass. It is true, that Scull has no positive promise of a reward; but, we think, the expectation which he acknowledges, in case the goods shall be condemned, must create such an influence in his mind, as renders it improper for him to give testimony on this occasion.
Lewis offered in evidence a pass from a justice of New-Jersey, permitting the goods in question to be conveyed through that State.
Sergeant objected, that the pass of a justice of New-Jersey, could not be given in evidence to defeat an Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania.
To this Lewis replied, that it was offered merely to obviate any imputation of fraud in concealing it.
But, by the court, it was declared, that the pass was not admissible as evidence.
# McKart v. United States

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Douglas
    White
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 185
Jack Frederick McKART, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
No. 403. Argued: February 27, 1969. --- Decided: May 26, 1969.
George C. Pontikes, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Francis X. Beytagh, Asst. Sol. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL, 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
# McKart v. United States/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Douglas White
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 185
Jack Frederick McKART, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
No. 403. Argued: February 27, 1969. --- Decided: May 26, 1969.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
The principle of Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402, should dispose of this case. There a registrant was plainly entitled to a statutory exemption from service because he was a divinity student. Yet he was denied the exemption because, having burned his draft card, he was classified as a 'delinquent' by Selective Service. He challenged that action in a civil suit for pre-induction review; and we granted relief.
This is not a suit for pre-induction review, but a defense tendered in a criminal prosecution. This statutory exemption is as clear as the one in Oestereich. The 'sole survivin' son of a family whose father had been killed in action is exempt and there can hardly be any argument that petitioner is such a 'son' though both his father and mother are dead. He is indeed the last male heir of the line and therefore one who Congress charitably decided should not be exposed to the chance of death in warfare.
If Oestereich could raise his claim to statutory exemption in a civil suit at a pre-induction stage, it follows a fortiori that petitioner can do so in a criminal prosecution for failure to obey the Act's mandate.
The truth of the matter is that it was the Selective Service Board that acted in a 'lawless' manner; and when its error is so egregious, it would be a travesty of justice to require a registrant-whether or not sophisticated-to pursue the administrative remedies that are designed for quite different categories of cases.

## Notes

* While questions of law are usually routed through the available administrative machinery (see Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616), that principle evolved under regulatory schemes where agencies had general oversight and supervision over companies or other groups of individuals. See Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463, 82 L.Ed. 638. Arguably, these Selective Service boards have no claim to that kind of expertise. But assuming that they do, the present 'legal' question is too transparent to be dignified in that manner.
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
# McKee v. Gratz

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 127
McKee v. Gratz
Argued: Nov. 13, 1922. ---
Messrs. Lon O. Hocker, Frank H. Sullivan, and George F. Haid, all of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 128-131 intentionally omitted]
Mr. S. Mayner Wallace, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 131-134 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 1
Louden v. Utah
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Utah for further proceedings in light of Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856.
Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be 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
# Loud without the wind was roaring

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Loud without the wind was roaring."
* 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.
* "Loud without the wind was roaring" (Loud without the wind was roaring ⁠Through th' autumnal sky), a poem by Emily Brontë
* "Loud without the wind was roaring" (Loud without the wind was roaring ⁠Through the wan autumnal sky), a poem by Emily Brontë
# Louden v. Utah

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 1
Louden v. Utah
George H. Searle, for petitioner.
A. Pratt Kesler, Atty. Gen. of Utah, and Ronald N. Boyce, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah.
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
# Men-at-the-Bar/Forbes, John George

​Forbes, John George, county court judge Melbourne 1859 and 1868, undergrad. Trin. Coll., Oxon, a student of Lincoln's Inn 9 June, 1837, called to the bar 28 Jan., 1847 (2nd son of John Forbes, Esq., of Winchfield Place, Berks).
# Men-at-the-Bar/Forbes, Thomas Theophilus

​Forbes, Thomas Theophilus, matric. Calcutta Univ., practises before the High Court at Calcutta, late pleader at Fort William, Bengal, a student of Lincoln's Inn 3 Nov., 1865 (then aged 30), called to the bar 6 June, 1868 (3rd son of Alexander John Forbes, of Sultanpore factory, Bengal); born , 1835.
    Allahabad, North-west Provinces India.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ford, John Southgate

​Ford, John Southgate, a student of Gray's Inn 11 Nov., 1863, called to the bar 6 June, 1865 (only son of Richard Ford, late of King's Lynn, gentleman, dec.); born .
    Sydney, Australia.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Forbes, Charles

​Forbes, Charles, a student of Gray's Inn 12 Jan., 1863, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1865 (eldest son of Major-Genl. David Forbes, late 78th highlanders, dec.); born ,
# Men-at-the-Bar/Forbes, Urquhart Atwell

​Forbes, Urquhart Atwell, author of Law relating to Trustees and Post Office Savings Banks, matric. London Univ. 1870, a student of Lincoln's Inn 5 June, 1872 (aged 22), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1877 (2nd son of Gordon Sullivan Forbes, of Madras C.S.); born 1850.
    10, Caledonia Place, Clifton, Bristol; Old Palace, Richmond, S.W.; 1, Brick Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ford, Edmund Salwey

​Ford, Edmund Salwey, B.A. Balliol Coll., Oxon, a student of Lincoln's Inn 7 Feb., 1863 (then aged 24), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1866 (2nd son of Rev. James Ford, of Torquay, Devon); born , 1839; married 18 Aug., 1869, Caroline, youngest dau. of late Robert Artendale, Esq., of Green Hill, Burnley.
    6, Southwick PI., W.; 6, New Ct., Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Forbes, John

​Forbes, John, Q.C., matric. Marischal Coll. and Aberdeen Univ., a member of the North-eastern circuit, a student of Lincoln's Inn 28 April, 1860 (then aged 22), certificate of honour Jan., 1862, studentship May, 1862, called to the bar 11 June, 1862, Q.C. 21 March, 1881, bencher 31 Jan., 1884 (3rd son of James Forbes, of Aberdeen, merchant); born 4 Feb., 1838; married 24 Aug., 1866, Maria Elizabeth, youngest dau. of Henry Thomas, Esq., of Sheffield.
    Farrar's Buildings, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ford, Edward

​Ford, Edward, B.A. London Univ. 1862 and a member of Convocation, member of joint Board of Examiners Inns of Court 1877-9, a student of Lincoln's Inn 6 Jan., 1864, real property law exhibition July, 1865, equity exhibition July, 1866, studentship Mich., 1866, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1866 (elder surviving son of William Ford, of Minchinhampton, co. Glouc.); born 27 Nov., 1843; married 20 May, 1875, Katharine Mary, eldest dau. of William Wellington Cooper, late of the Inner Temple, bar.-at-law, dec.
    164, Adelaide Road, N.W.; 19, Old Buildings. W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Forbes, Arthur Henry

​Forbes, Arthur Henry, B.A. Calcutta Univ., junior secretary Board of Revenue Bengal, practises before the High Court at Calcutta, a student of Lincoln's Inn 13 Nov., 1865 (then aged 22), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1868 (5th son of Alexander John Forbes, of Sultanpore factory, East Indies, indigo planter and landholder); born , 1843.
    Calcutta.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ford, Theodore Thomas

​Ford, Theodore Thomas, judge supreme court Straits Settlements since Nov., 1876, presiding judge of Penang division March to July, 1874, acting judge of Penang 1874-6, acting chief justice 1876-8 and in 1883, a student of the Middle Temple 14 April, 1863, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1866 (6th son of George Samuel Ford, of London, late attorney and solicitor); born , 1830; married , 1859, Ellen, dau. of late George Watson, Esq.
    Straits Settlements; Clifton, Bristol.
# May v. Henderson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 111
May v. Henderson
Argued: March 5, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
Messrs. H. A. Jacobs and Henry G. W. Dinkelspiel, both of San Franchisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Messrs. A. A. De Ligne, of San Francisco, Cal., 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
# May v. Juneau County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 408
May v. Juneau County
M. C. Burch and Duane E. Fox, for plaintiff in error.
S. U. Pinney, for defendant 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
# May v. Sloan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 231
May v. Sloan
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Samuel Field Phillips for the appellant.
Mr. Charles N. West for the appellee.
Mr. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Maryland, my Maryland, and other poems/Magdalen

MAGDALEN
The Hebrew girl, with flaming brow, The banner-blush of shame, Sinks at the sinless Saviour’s knees And dares to breathe His name. From the full fountain of her eyes The lava-globes are roll’d— They wash his feet; she spurns them off With her ringlet-scarf of gold.
The Meek One feels the eloquence Of agonizing prayer, The burning tears, the suppliant face, The penitential hair; And when, to crown her brimming woe, The ointment box is riven— “Rise, daughter, rise! Much hast thou loved, Be all thy sins forgiven!”
Dear God! The prayers of good and pure, The canticles of light, Enrobe Thy throne with gorgeous skies, As incense in Thy sight; May the shivered vase of Magdalen Soothe many an outcast’s smart, Teaching what fragrant pleas may spring From out a broken heart!
# Maryland, my Maryland, and other poems/Keats

KEATS
“Here lies one whose name was writ on water”
Beyond the wall that belts the town, Where grand Saint Peter’s titan crown Looks apostolically down;
With shrunken form and shrouded lid, The Song Bird—not the Song—is hid Near Caius Cestius’ pyramid.
There purer from his Roman pyre, The star-eyed Skylark of the Choir, Slumbers, a radiant Child of Fire!
Twin bards—twin death! no slander parts, With livid tongue and venomed darts, The Soul of Souls and “Heart of Hearts.”
The coheirs of Porphyrogene, Their dreams are royal and serene Beneath the Night’s sweet sybil queen.
Methinks, their sad song sadly calls From every breeze that swells and falls Along the Coliseum’s halls.
And that sad song shall murmur there, Upon the pulses of the air, With incense-wings of warbled prayer.
And it shall sigh and fondly flit When dome and tomb are bright moonlit, O’er him whose name was water-writ.
’Twas writ on water, but the wave That surges from a hallowed grave Is not old Ocean’s liquid slave.
’Tis the tumultuous Sea of Song— The Scroll of the Anointed Throng To whom eternities belong!
Thy name, dear Keats, had water-birth, And now, in its majestic worth, It heaves its billows over earth!