OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Harmon Industries v. Browner

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* 191 F.3d 894
* Harmon Industries, Inc., Appellee
* v.
* Carol M. Browner, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; United States of America; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellants. Pacific Legal Foundation; Michigan Manufacturers Association; Mississippi Manufacturers Association; Illinois Manufacturers Association; South Carolina Chambers of Commerce; Environmental Federation of Oklahoma; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce; Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc.; Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce; The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; American Forest & Paper Association; American Iron & Steel Institute; American Petroleum Institute; Chamber of Commerce of the United States; Chemical Manufacturers Association; Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council; Commercial Affairs Committee of the Hazardous Waste Action Coalition; National Association of Manufacturers; National Mining Association; National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; Rubber Manufacturers Association; Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Washington Legal Foundation; Missouri Chamber of Commerce; Associated Industries of Missouri, Amici on Behalf of Appellee.
* No. 98-3775
* United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
* April 22, 1999, Submitted
* September 16, 1999, Filed
* The Name of the Case has been Corrected by the Court September 21, 1999.
* Rehearing En Banc and Rehearing Denied January 24, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 97-0832-CV-W-3. Honorable Ortie Smith, District Judge.
Affirmed.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Robert H. Oakley of Washington, D.C. Lois J. Schiffer, Eric G. Hostetler, David Shilton and Belinda L. Holmes also appeared on appellants' brief.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Alok Ahuja of Kansas City, MO. Terry J. Satterlee also appeared on appellee's brief.
Before BEAM and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, District Judge.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
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
# Harmon v. McAdams

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 363
Harmon v. McAdams
Robert Doyle and C. H. Wood, for plaintiffs in error.
John P. Wilson, for defendants 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
# Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 2/The Three Sluggards

151.—THE THREE SLUGGARDS.
A certain King had three sons who were all equally dear to him, and he did not know which of them to appoint as his successor after his own death. When the time came when he was about to die, he summoned them to his bedside and said, "Dear children, I have been thinking of something which I will declare unto you; whichsoever of you is the laziest shall have the kingdom." The eldest said, "Then, father, the kingdom is mine, for I am so idle that if I lie down to rest, and a drop falls in my eye, I will not open it that I may sleep." The second said, "Father, the kingdom belongs to me, for I am so idle that when I am sitting by the fire warming myself, I would rather let my heel be burnt off than draw back my leg." The third said, "Father, the kingdom is mine, for I am so idle that if I were going to be hanged, and had the rope already round my neck, and ​any one put a sharp knife into my hand with which I might cut the rope, I would rather let myself be hanged than raise my hand to the rope." When the father heard that, he said, "Thou hast carried it the farthest, and shalt be King."
# Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 2/The Stolen Farthings

154.—THE STOLEN FARTHINGS.
A father was one day sitting at dinner with his wife and his children, and a good friend who had come on a visit was with them. And as they thus sat, and it was striking twelve o'clock, the stranger saw the door open, and a very pale child dressed in snow-white clothes came in. It did not look around, and it did not speak; but went straight into the next room. Soon afterwards it came back, and went out at the door again in the same quiet manner. On the second and on the third day, it came also exactly in the same way. At last the stranger asked the father to whom the beautiful child that went ​into the next room every day at noon belonged?" I have never seen it," said he, neither did he know to whom it could belong. The next day when it again- came, the stranger pointed it out to the father, who however did not see it, and the mother and the children also all saw nothing. On this the stranger got up, went to the room door, opened it a little, and peeped in. Then he saw the child sitting on the ground, and digging and seeking about industriously amongst the crevices between the boards of the floor, but when it saw the stranger, it disappeared. He now told what he had seen and described the child exactly, and the mother recognized it, and said, "Ah, it is my dear child who died a month ago." They took up the boards and found two farthings which the child had once received from its mother that it might give them to a poor man; it, however, had thought, "Thou canst buy thyself a biscuit for that," and had kept the farthings, and hidden them in the openings between the boards; and therefore it had had no rest in its grave, and had come every day at noon to seek for these far-things. The parents gave the money at once to a poor man, and after that the child was never seen again.
# Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 2/The Story of Schlauraffen Land

158.—THE STORY OF SCHLAURAFFEN LAND.
In the time of Schlauraffen I went there, and saw Rome and the Lateran hanging by a small silken thread, and a man without feet who outran a swift horse, and a keen sharp sword that cut through a bridge. There I saw a young ass with a silver nose which pursued two fleet hares, and a lime-tree that was very large, on which hot cakes were growing. There I saw a lean old goat which carried about a hundred cart-loads of fat on his body, and sixty loads of salt. Have I not told enough lies? There I saw a plough ploughing without horse or cow, and a child of one year threw four millstones from Ratisbon to Treves, and from Treves to Strasburg, and a hawk swam over the Rhine, which he had a perfect right to do. There I heard some fishes begin to make such a disturbance with each other, that it resounded as far as heaven, and sweet honey flowed like water from a deep valley at the top of a high mountain, and these were strange things. There were two crows which were mowing a meadow, and I saw two gnats building a bridge, and two doves tore a wolf to pieces; two children brought forth two kids, and two frogs threshed corn together. There I saw two mice consecrating a bishop, and two cats scratching out a bear's tongue. Then a snail came running up and killed two furious lions. There stood a barber and shaved a woman's beard off; and two sucking-children bade their mother hold her tongue. There I saw two ​greyhounds which brought a mill out of the water; and a sorry old horse was beside it, and said it was right. And four horses were standing in the yard threshing corn with all their might, and two goats were heating the stove, and a red cow shot the bread into the oven. Then a cock crowed, Cock-a-doodle-doo! The story is all told—Cock-a-doodle-doo!
# Hodges v. United States (368 U.S. 139)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 139
Hodges v. United States (368 U.S. 139)
Argued: Nov. 13, 1961. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1961
We brought this case here upon the understanding that the question it presented was whether the District Court should have accorded petitioner a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, when it appeared that no appeal had been perfected from the original judgment of conviction. After a thorough review of the full record, made possible after the case was briefed and argued on the merits, we have concluded that the petition for certiorari was improvidently granted. The record shows that the District Court did in fact conduct a hearing upon the petitioner's § 2255 motion, 156 F.Supp. 313, but that the minutes of such hearing have been lost. Whether or not that hearing was adequate need not, however, be determined, for we are satisfied from the record, which includes the trial transcript, that in any event this was a case where no hearing was required under the statute, because 'the files and records of the case conclusively show' that the petitioner was entitled to no relief. Therefore, and necessarily without approving or disapproving the view of the Court of Appeals on what now appears an extraneous issue, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 282 F.2d 858, we dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. It is so ordered.
Writ dismissed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACK concur, 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
# Hodges v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hodges 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.
* Hodges v. United States (203 U.S. 1)
* Hodges v. United States (368 U.S. 139)
# Hodges v. United States (368 U.S. 139)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 139
Hodges v. United States (368 U.S. 139)
Argued: Nov. 13, 1961. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1961
Quinn O'Connell, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., 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
# Hodges v. Vaughan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
86 U.S. 12
Hodges v. Vaughan
THIS was a motion made on behalf of the plaintiff in error for a certiorari upon suggestion of a diminution of a record coming on error from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The diminution alleged was that the clerk of the court below had not appended to the transcript his certificate that the transcript contained the whole record.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
86 U.S. 12
Hodges v. Vaughan
A motion for certiorari is founded upon a suggestion of diminution, and is designed to bring up some part of the record left back and not included in the transcript. When first presented, and without explanation, the court was inclined to grant the motion, but upon further consideration, we are all of the opinion that it must be denied, as the writ of certiorari is not a proper remedy for the alleged defect. Nothing is omitted from the transcript which is a part of the record in the court below. On the contrary, the only complaint is that the clerk has not appended to the transcript his certificate that it contains the full record. Such a defect, in a case of contumacy, might be remedied by a mandamus, but no application of that sort is made nor is it suggested that there are any grounds for such an application. Under the circumstances the motion for certiorari is denied, and leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript to enable him to apply to the clerk of the court below to append thereto the necessary certificate.

## 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
# Hodgson v. Federal Oil & Development Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 15
Hodgson v. Federal Oil & Development Company
Argued: April 11, 1927. ---
Messrs. James M. Hodgson and Floyd E. Pendell, both of Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Messrs. Harold D. Roberts, of Denver, Colo., Tyson S. Dynes, of Chicago, Ill., and Peter H. Holme, of Denver, Colo., for appellees.
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
# Heroes of the Telegraph

Heroes of the TELEGRAPH
J. Munro.
SIR CHARLES WHEATSTONE.
HEROES OF THE TELEGRAPH
BY
J. MUNRO AUTHOR OF 'ELECTRIClTY AND ITS USES,' 'PIONEERS OF ELECTRICITY,' 'THE WIRE AND THE WAVE'; AND JOINT-AUTHOR OF 'MUNRO AND JAMIESON'S POCKET-BOOK OF ELECTRICAL RULES AND TABLES.'
LONDON THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY 56, Paternoster Row; 65, St. Paul's Churchyard and 164, Piccadilly 1891
LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
PREFACE.
The present work is in some respects a sequel to the Pioneers of Electricity, and it deals with the lives and principal achievements of those distinguished men to whom we are indebted for the introduction of the electric telegraph and telephone, as well as other marvels of electric science.
CONTENTS.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1930, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 93 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Heroes in the War on Terror

Heroes in the War on Terror was a weekly publication put out by the U.S. military from 2006-2015, highlighting exceptional personnel during the Global War on Terror. Issues published online can be viewed here and here.
Volume 1
Volume 2
* Issue 15: Ackerman; Freeman (Apr. 11, 2007)
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
# Harrell v. Beall/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
84 U.S. 590
Harrell v. Beall
The appellant has furnished a brief and an oral argument which have received the attentive consideration of the court. There is no appearance here for the appellee, and this has made us more careful in the examination of the record.
The question is wholly one of the weight of evidence, involving no controverted proposition of law; and the pressure of business on this court will not justify us in reproducing in our opinion the facts on which our judgments rest in such cases. It must suffice to say that we are convinced that the sale to Echols was a barefaced fraud, and that if the appellee did not know it when he purchased of Echols it was because he intentionally shut his eyes to the truth, and that he had such notice and information as made it his duty to inquire further, and that the slightest effort by him in that direction would have discovered the whole fraud.
Such were the views on which the decree below was founded, and it is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
Dissenting, Mr. Justice DAVIS.

## 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
# Harpers Weekly/General Robert Edward Lee

[Corrected misspelling of Robert ["Edmund"] Lee to Robert "Edward" Lee for search engines, research and leisure reading purposes.] There was no "General Edmund Lee" and Robert Edward Lee was a captain in Mexico. Too, Robert Edward Lee was never wounded in any war. The misrepresentation of "Edmund" is due to ignorance by Unionists when First published as cover article in Harper's Weekly. July 2, 1864
General Robert E. Lee, Commander-in-Chief of the Rebel Armies, whose portrait we give on this page, is unquestionably a consummate Master of the art of war. That superiority, indeed, was acquired at the expense and under the patronage of the Government he is now endeavoring to destroy; but this does not alter the fact. His career, prior to his desertion of the flag of the country, may be briefly stated. Born in 1808, he was regularly educated at West Point. In the Mexican campaign he served with the Engineer Corps, and was twice promoted for gallantry. At Chapultepec he was severely wounded [error]. In 1852, while holding the rank of Major, he was appointed Superintendent of the Military Academy; but three years afterward he was sent to Europe with M'clellan, and a Captain, to study the proceedings of the French and English armies in the siege of Sebastopol. About this time he was advanced to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel of the second Regiment of Cavalry, and this was his position when he traitorously forsook his country and entered the rebel service.
General Lee, now in his fifty-sixth year, is six feet in height, erect and well-formed, and of imposing appearance; has clear black eyes, dark-gray hair, and a heavy gray beard. He is plain in dress, wearing a black felt hat with a narrow strip of gold around it, and a plain Brigadier's coat with three stars on the collar. He is said to be popular with his army, but the conviction is growing that in General Grant he has met his match, and the confidence now entertained in him is not, probably, as great as formerly. In the present campaign he has displayed great tenacity and skill in the management of his army; but in all the elements of strategy Grant has proved more than his equal.
$_{ThephotographfromwhichourengravingismadeisonetakenbyMESSRS.MINNIS&COWELL,ofRichmond,whichbearsthestampofitslegalregistrationin1863,"intheDistrictCourtoftheConfederateStatesfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia."}$
# Harrell v. Beall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
84 U.S. 590
Harrell v. Beall
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Beall brought a suit in chancery in the court below, in his character of assignee in bankruptcy of one Jarrell, against a certain Harrell and one Echols, to set aside what he charged to be a fraudulent sale to Echols of the bankrupt's property, and to have the property subjected to the payment of debts in the bankruptcy proceeding.
The material allegations of the bill were, that the bankrupt, in a state of insolvency, procured the sale of valuable real estate belonging to him, under judgments which were a lien on it, and that by collusion with Echols, who was his clerk and agent, it was bought in by Echols for a merely nominal sum, one out of all proportion to its real value; that the purchase was made really for Jarrell, and the money, if any, which was actually paid on the execution sale was furnished by Jarrell; that the title to the land and some notes for rent remained in Echols's name until he disposed of them, as it was charged that he had done, to the defendant, Harrell; that Harrell purchased with notice of the fraudulent conduct of Echols, and for a sum far below the value of the property purchased.
The defence of Harrell was, that there was no fraud in the original purchase by Echols, and if there was any, that he, Harrell, was an innocent purchaser for value without notice.
The question was thus one of fact only.
Upon a large quantity of evidence, which when coming to this court filled a transcript or record-book that covered seventy-one 8vo. pages in a style that would make at least one hundred and twenty-five pages like the body of these Reports, the court below considered that the sale to Echols was a plain fraud; and that if Harrell, who had purchased from Echols, failed to perceive that it was so, his failure arose from a culpable inattention to what he was bound to attend to. That court accordingly decreed in favor of the assignee. Harrell alone appealed.
Harrell, propri a person a, argued his case, orally, and filed a brief of his own, and also one of Mr. A. T. Akerman.
No opposing counsel.
Mr. Justice MILLER 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
# Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; the Supreme Court extended this prohibition to state elections. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 663
Annie E. HARPER et al., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. Evelyn BUTTS, Appellant,
Argued: Jan. 25 and 26, 1966. --- Decided: March 24, 1966
Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D.C., Robert L. Segar, Flint, Mich., and J. A. Jordan, Jr., Norfolk, Va., for appellants.
George D. Gibson, Richmond, Va., for appellees.
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall, for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
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
# Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 951
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
Solicitor General Marshall, for movant.
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in the oral argument, as amicus curiae, is granted and thirty minutes are allotted for that purpose. Counsel for the appellees are allotted an additional thirty minutes for oral argument.

## 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
# Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 951
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

## 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