OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Holt v. Virginia/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 131
Holt v. Virginia
Argued: April 27 and 28, 1965. --- Decided: May 17, 1965
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has in effect held that the manner in which petitioners presented their motion for a change of venue violated professional standards governing members of the Virginia Bar. This Court now sets aside the trivial disciplinary penalty imposed simply because in its view petitioners' conduct was not out of bounds. Believing that any differences over the professional propriety of petitioners' actions involve nothing of constitutional proportions, I would affirm the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

## 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
# Holt v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
218 U.S. 245
Holt v. United States
Argued: October 13, 14, 1910. --- Decided: October 31, 1910
Messrs. Hugh M. Caldwell, C. F. Riddell, and John Lewis Smith for plaintiff in error.
Assistant Attorney General Fowler for defendant in error.
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
# Helvering v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 282
Helvering v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
No. 51 Argued: Nov. 7, 1934. --- Decided: Dec 3, 1934
The Attorney General and Mr. H. Brian Holland, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Mr. Henry W. Clark, of New York City, for respondent.
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
# Helvering v. Therrell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 218
Helvering v. Therrell
Argued: Dec. 17, 1937. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1938
Messrs. Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., and Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Mr. Harry M. Voorhis, of Orlando, Fla., for respondents Therrell and Tunnicliffe.
Mr. Bernhard Knollenberg, of New York City, for petitioner McLoughlin.
Mr. John W. Townsend, of Washington, D.C., for respondent Freedman.
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
# Helvering v. Watts

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 387
Helvering v. Watts
Argued: Nov. 20, 1935. --- Decided: Dec 16, 1935
The Attorney General, and Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for p titioner.
Mr. Samuel Seabury, of New York City, for respondents.
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
# Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 312
Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate
No. 170 Argued: Nov. 15, 16, 1934. --- Decided: Dec 3, 1934
The Attorney General and Mr. Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. George H. Koster, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
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
# Helvering v. William Flaccus Oak Leather Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 247
Helvering v. William Flaccus Oak Leather Company
Argued: April 3, 1941. --- Decided: April 28, 1941
Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John A. McCann, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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 v. United States A-145

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 1232
Lee Marshall HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES.No. A-145.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice.

## 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 v. Washington

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Blackmun
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 55
Harris v. Washington et al.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington
No. 70-5213
The principle announced in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, which bars a second criminal trial where the defendant has been acquitted in a previous trial involving the same ultimate factual issue, applies irrespective of whether the jury in the first trial considered all relevant evidence, and irrespective of the State's good faith in bringing successive prosecutions.
Certiorari granted; 78 Wash. 2d 894, 480 P. 2d 484, reversed.
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
# Harris v. Washington/Dissent Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Blackmun
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 55
Harris v. Washington
Argued: Nov. 16, 1971. ---
Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, dissenting.
My own views on the issue presented by this case were expressed when I wrote for the Court of Appeals in Ashe v. Swenson, 399 F.2d 40 (C.A.8 1968), reversed and remanded, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 523 (1970). I am not persuaded as to the rightness of the Court's imposing in that case-as a Fifth Amendment-Fourteenth Amendment imperative-the concept of collateral estoppel upon a state criminal proceeding. I could have understood a flat overruling of Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464, 78 S.Ct. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 913 (1958), and of Ciucci v. Illinois, 356 U.S. 571, 78 S.Ct. 839, 2 L.Ed.2d 983 (1958), despite the interim appearance of Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). But overruling those two cases was a step the Court, for reasons that escape me, refused to take or felt it could not take.
Neither am I persuaded by the 'single frolic' or 'one criminal episode' or 'same transaction' theory espoused by the Justices in concurrence in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S., at 448-460, 90 S.Ct., at 1196-1202, 25 L.Ed.2d 523. That approach would place multiple but separate-shot murders under the protective umbrella of double jeopardy. I cannot subscribe to reasoning that would necessarily produce a result of that kind.
I therefore dissent.

## 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 v. Wall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
48 U.S. 693
Harris v. Wall

## 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 v. Zion Savings Bank & Trust Company
## Dissenting Opinion

    O. Douglas
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 447
Harris v. Zion Savings Bank & Trust Company
Argued: Dec. 17, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 11, 1943
See 318 U.S. 799, 63 S.Ct. 659, 87 L.Ed. --.
Mr. J. D. Skeen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner.
Mr. Hadlond P. Thomas, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for respondent.
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
# Henderson v. Allen

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
HENDERSON verʃus ALLEN.
A
the court faid that the practice under the act for the relief of infolvent debtors, was, that only thofe fhould be difcharged, who made their application within the three firft days of the term; for, otherwife, the Court might be continually employed on this bufinefs, to the delay and detriment of every other.
The Prothonotary mentioned, on this occafion,, that it was the conftant practice to enquire, whether the writ of execution was returnable to the term, at which the defendant applied for his difcharge.
The petition was difmiffed.
Bankʃon for the plaintiff—Rawle for the defendant.
# Henderson Water Company v. Corporation Commission of North Carolina

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 278
Henderson Water Company v. Corporation Commission of North Carolina
Argued: Nov. 18, 1925. --- Decided: Dec 14, 1925
Mr. J. H. Bridgers, of Henderson, N. C., for appellant.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# Henderson Company v. Thompson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
300 U.S. 258
Henderson Company v. Thompson
Argued: Feb. 2, 3, 1937. --- Decided: March 1, 1937
On Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
Mr. L. M. Fischer, of Amarillo, Tex., for appellant.
Messrs. William Madden Hill, of Dallas, Tex., and William McCraw, of Austin, Tex., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 259 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Helvering v. Griffiths

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 371
Helvering v. Griffiths
Argued: Dec. 7, 1942. --- Decided: March 1, 1943
Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Roland L. Redmond, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Helvering v. Grinnell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 153
Helvering v. Grinnell
Argued: Jan. 16, 1935. --- Decided: Feb 4, 1935
The Attorney General and Mr. J. Crawford Biggs, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Bernhard Knollenberg, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 405
Helvering v. Gerhardt
Argued: April 7, 8, 1938. ---
[Syllabus from pages 405-407 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Golden W. Bell, Asst. Sol. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Julius Henry Cohen, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Henry Epstein, of Albany, N.Y., for the State of New York and 26 other states, as amici curiae.
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
# Helvering v. Gambrill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 11
Helvering v. Gambrill
Argued: March 6, 1941. --- Decided: March 31, 1941
See 313 U.S. 598, 61 S.Ct. 937, 85 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Helen R. Carloss, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Allin H. Pierce, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 238
Helvering v. Gowran
Argued: Oct. 22, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1937
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. John C. Altman, of San Francisco, Cal., and A. L. Nash, of Manitowoc, Wis., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Hong Kong Policy Act Report

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hong Kong Policy Act Report."
* 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.
* 2018 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
* 2019 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
* 2020 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
* 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
* 2022 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
* 2023 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
* 2024 Hong Kong Policy Act Report
# Hendrick v. Maryland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 610
Hendrick v. Maryland
Argued: November 11 and 12, 1914. --- Decided: January 5, 1915
Messrs. Osborne I. Yellott, Jackson H. Balston, Clement L. Bouv e, and William E. Richardson for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 611-613 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney General of Maryland, and Mr. Enos S. Stockbridge for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 613-618 intentionally omitted]
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
# Hendrickson v. Apperson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 105
Hendrickson v. Apperson
Argued: Oct. 11, 1917. --- Decided: Nov 5, 1917
[Syllabus from 105-106 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Helm Bruce, of Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 106-107 intentionally omitted]
Mr. L. A. Faurest, of Elizabethtown, Ky., 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
# Hendrickson v. Creager

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 115
Hendrickson v. Creager
Argued: Oct. 11, 1917. --- Decided: Nov 5, 1917
Mr. Helm Bruce, of Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.
Mr. L. A. Faurest, of Elizabethtown, Ky., for respondents.
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
# Hendrickson v. Creager/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 115
Hendrickson v. Creager
Argued: Oct. 11, 1917. --- Decided: Nov 5, 1917
The essential questions involved in these cases are the same as those considered and decided in Hendrickson v. Apperson. (No. 427) 245 U.S. 105, 38 Sup. Ct. 44, 62 L. Ed. --. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in each of them is accordingly
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
# Hendersonville Light Power Company v. Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 563
Hendersonville Light Power Company v. Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Company
Argued: April 10, 1917. --- Decided: April 23, 1917
Messrs. Michael Schenck, C. P. Sanders, J. C. Martin, Thomas S. Rollins, and George H. Wright for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 563-565 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles W. Tillett, Horace l. Bomar, William A. Smith, James E. Shipman, and Thomas C. Guthrie for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 566-568 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
# Gratiana Dancing and Singing

          I.
See! with what constant motion Even and glorious, as the sunne,  Gratiana steeres that noble frame, Soft as her breast, sweet as her voyce, That gave each winding law and poyze,  And swifter then the wings of Fame.
          II.
She beat the happy pavement By such a starre-made firmament,  Which now no more the roofe envies; But swells up high with Atlas ev'n, Bearing the brighter, nobler Heav'n,  And in her, all the Dieties.
          III.
Each step trod out a lovers thought And the ambitious hopes he brought,  Chain'd to her brave feet with such arts, Such sweet command and gentle awe, As when she ceas'd, we sighing saw  The floore lay pav'd with broken hearts.
          IV.
So did she move: so did she sing: Like the harmonious spheres that bring  Unto their rounds their musick's ayd; Which she performed such a way, As all th' inamour'd world will say:  The Graces daunced, and Apollo play'd.
# Grassley Reiterates State Department Document Request, Seeks Inspector General Involvement in Special Government Employee Inquiry

* related authors: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, quotes, news.
Government Business on Private Email is Detrimental to Good Government. March 20, 2015. U.S. Senator Charles Grassley. see also archived by the Internet Archive.
Government Business on Private Email is Detrimental to Good Government
United States Senate
March 20, 2015
Grassley Reiterates State Department Document Request, Seeks Inspector General Involvement in Special Government Employee Inquiry
Mar 20, 2015
WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley is ramping up his inquiry into whether the State Department misused the Special Government Employee (SGE) designation for outside expertise in light of revelations of private email use at the State Department. Grassley reiterated his unanswered request from 2013 that the State Department provide all communications between the State Department and an outside firm, Teneo. A top State Department employee, Huma Abedin, worked both for the government and Teneo at the same time and reportedly had a private email account on an email server in the Secretary’s personal residence.
“A number of conflict of interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company, Teneo, ‘brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs,’ ” Grassley wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry. “Moreover, these concerns are heightened when high level employees, such as Ms. Abedin, may have used non-government email accounts to engage in both government and private business. Furthermore, Ms. Abedin and other State Department employees appear to have been improperly categorized as SGEs.”
Grassley made a new request of the agency inspector general. He also expressed concern that the private email use could impede State Department fulfillment of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. FOIA is in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has direct legislative jurisdiction over FOIA, needs to have a clear understanding of the effects that these email practices at the State Department have had on FOIA compliance,” Grassley wrote to State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. “Additionally, it is important to understand whether the State Department’s excessive use of the SGE designation undermines standards of ethics.”
Grassley’s letters ask a series of detailed questions about the SGE designation and the use of private email to conduct State Department business.
Grassley’s letter to Kerry is available here. Grassley’s letter to Linick is available here.
-30-
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
# Gratiot v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Gratiot 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.
* Gratiot v. United States (40 U.S. 336)
* Gratiot v. United States (45 U.S. 80)
See also United States v. Gratiot.
# Gratiot v. United States (40 U.S. 336)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
40 U.S. 336
Gratiot 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
# Granza v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 939
Granza v. United States
Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
Motion to dispense with printing the petition granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 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