OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Gratiot County State Bank v. Johnson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 246
Gratiot County State Bank v. Johnson
Argued: Jan. 20, 1919. --- Decided: March 17, 1919
Messrs. William L. Carpenter and Elliott G. Stevenson, both of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.
Messrs. Edward J. Moinet, of St. Johns, Mich., and William A. Bahlke, of Alma, Mich., 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
# Grass

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Grass."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, 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.
* "The Grass", a poem by Emily Dickinson
* "Grass", a poem by Carl Sandburg
* "Grass", a poem by Josef Václav Sládek
* Grass (1925), a silent documentary film directed by Merian Caldwell Cooper and Ernest Beaumont Schoedsack
# Hodgson v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Brennan
    White
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 333
Hodgson, Secretary of Labor v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 655. Argued: March 23, 1971 --- Decided: June 14, 1971
Failure of labor union member's election complaint to include an objection to meeting-attendance rule during his pursuit of internal union remedies when the member was aware of the existence of the rule bars the Secretary of Labor from later challenging that rule in an action under § 402 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which provides that once a member challenging an election has exhausted his internal union remedies and filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary "shall investigate such complaint and, if he finds probable cause to believe that a violation... has occurred and has not been remedied, he shall... bring a civil action against the labor organization." Pp. 336-341.
426 F. 2d 696, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., wrote the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, DOUGLAS, HARLAN, STEWART, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 341, and WHITE, J., post, p. 343, filed dissenting opinions.
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Gray, Richard B. Stone, Peter G. Nash, George T. Avery, Beate Bloch, and Cornelius S. Donoghue, Jr.
Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Bernard Kleiman, George H. Cohen, Carl Frankel, and Jerome Smith.

## 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. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America/Dissent White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan White
United States Supreme Court
403 U.S. 333
Hodgson v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America
Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
If, as in this case, a new election is ordered because a candidate used union facilities when he should not have, the Act directs a new election 'under supervision of the Secretary and, so far as lawful and practicable, in conformity with the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization.' 29 U.S.C. § 482(c). I take it, then, that the Secretary is under no obligation, indeed forbidden, to follow a provision of the bylaws or constitution that is unlawful. If, in proceedings that order a new election, the Secretary discovers in the bylaws or constitution a provision regulating elections that he deems unlawful-such as the meeting-attendance rule-but the union insists that it is entirely lawful, does the Secretary simply ignore the provision in holding the election, may he or the union secure a judicial ruling on it, or is court action foreclosed and the Secretary required to follow the provision simply because a member in challenging the election failed to attack the meeting-attendance rule, probably because it did not affect him?
I agree that if Hantzis' claim of using union facilities had been rejected, a new election could not have been ordered even though the Secretary turned up the meeting-attendance rule in his investigation and discovered that the ballot boxes had also been stuffed. But if the Secretary finds an invalid bylaw that purports to govern a new election that has been validly ordered on a claim that has been exhausted, as in this case, the Secretary appears to have expressed grounds in the Act, independent of the complaint-exhaustion requirements, to insist that the new election be conducted in accordance with the law and to insist that a court adjudicated the matter if the union stands by its bylaw provision.

## 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
# In a Glass Darkly/Mr. Justice Harbottle

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Ghost stories.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
A novella first published in In a Glass Darkly, an 1872 collection of ghost stories
MR. JUSTICE HARBOTTLE.
* Prologue
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
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
# Helvering v. Panamerican Life Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 272
Helvering v. Panamerican Life Insurance Company
Argued: Nov. 19, 1940. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1940
This case involves respondent's income tax for the tax year 1933. It is in all respects governed by our decision in Helvering v. Oregon Mutual Life Ins. Co., 311 U.S. 267, 61 S.Ct. 207, 85 L.Ed. 180, this day decided, and on the authority of that case the decision below is
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
# Helvering v. Owens

United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 468
Helvering v. Owens Obici
Argued: Dec. 9, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1939
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Norman D. Keller, of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Mr. Ewing Everett, of New York City, for Owens and Obici.
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. Panamerican Life Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 272
Helvering v. Panamerican Life Insurance Company
Argued: Nov. 19, 1940. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1940
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Eugene J. McGivney, of New Orleans, La., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 267
Helvering v. Oregon Mutual Life Insurance Company
Argued: Nov. 19, 1940. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1940
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. William Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 247
Helvering v. Pfeiffer
Argued: Oct. 22, 1937. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1937
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. John C. Altman, of San Francisco, Cal., 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
# Helvering v. Ohio Leather Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 102
Helvering v. Ohio Leather Company
Argued: Oct. 21, 1942. --- Decided: Nov 9, 1942
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Valentine Brookes, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

## 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
# Herland

* related portals: Feminism.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
Herland is a utopian novel from 1915, written by feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman. The book describes an isolated society comprised entirely of women who reproduce via parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction). The result is an ideal social order, free of war, conflict and domination. It first appeared as a serial in Gilman's monthly magazine Forerunner.

### Contents

* Chapter 1: A Not Unnatural Enterprise
* Chapter 2: Rash Advances
* Chapter 3: A Peculiar Imprisonment
* Chapter 4: Our Venture
* Chapter 5: A Unique History
* Chapter 6: Comparisons Are Odious
* Chapter 7: Our Growing Modesty
* Chapter 8: The Girls of Herland
* Chapter 9: Our Relations and Theirs
* Chapter 10: Their Religions and Our Marriages
* Chapter 11: Our Difficulties
* Chapter 12: Expelled
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 1935, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 88 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

## External links

* Audio book of Herland can be found here
# Holt v. Alleghany Corporation/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 28
Holt v. Alleghany Corporation
Argued: March 21, 1966. ---
The writs of certiorari are dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice BLACK dissents from dismissal of the writs and would reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and district courts substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Friendly's dissent in the Court of Appeals, 333 F.2d 327, 338.
Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice WHITE dissent from the dismissal of the writs, believing that these cases having been taken for review should be adjudicated on the merits.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

## 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. Crucible Steel Company of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 262
Holt v. Crucible Steel Company of America
Argued: March 4, 1912. --- Decided: April 1, 1912
Messrs. H. H. Nettelroth and John C. Doolan for appellant.
Messrs. Keith L. Bullitt and William Marshall Bullitt for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 263 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Holmgren v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 509
Holmgren v. United States
Argued: and submitted March 9, 1910. --- Decided: May 16, 1910
Mr. Mashall B. Woodworth for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 510-513 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Fowler for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-515 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Holt v. Alleghany Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 28
Holt v. Alleghany Corporation
Argued: March 21, 1966. ---
See 384 U.S. 967, 86 S.Ct. 1583.
Stuart N. Updike, New York City, for petitioners.
Mark F. Hughes and Walter R. Mansfield, New York City, 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
# Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2002

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the exclusion from Federal income tax for restitution received by victims of the Nazi Regime.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2002’’.

### SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX FOR RE

    Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘
    ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to section 803 (relating to no federal income tax on restitution received by victims of the Nazi regime or their heirs or estates).’’.
Approved December 17, 2002.

## LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    H.R. 4823 (S. 2577):
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
       June 4, considered and passed House.
       Nov. 20, considered and passed Senate
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Holroyd v. Pumphrey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 69
Holroyd v. Pumphrey
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Davis and Mr. Lawrence, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Bradley, for the defendant in error.
The points did not involve any general principles of law, and are, therefore, omitted.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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
# It All Depends on You

* "It All Depends on You" (1926), the original sheet music
* "It All Depends on You" (1928), a rendition performed by Al Jolson in the part-talkie musical film The Singing Fool
# It Came Out of Egypt

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Extracted from Munsey's Magazine, 1923 Sept–Nov. A cursory comparison suggests that this series is the same as Brood of the Witch Queen—chapter 11 onwards—reformatted, and with minor modifications.
It Came Out of Egypt
A SERIES OF SIX MYSTERIES FROM THE LAND OF THE NILE
By Sax Rohmer Author of “Dr. Fu-Manchu,” “The Golden Scorpion,” etc.
* The Mask of Set (Sept 1923)
* The Lair of the Spiders
* The Bats of Meydum (Oct 1923)
* Flowering of the Lotus
* The Silken Cord (Nov 1923)
* The Book of Thoth
Copyright, 1923, by Sax Rohmer
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 1959, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 64 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
# It Came Upon a Midnight Clear

* related portals: Hymns, Christmas.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
"It Came Upon a Midnight Clear" was written by Edmund Sears (1810-1876), pastor of the Unitarian Church in Wayland, Massachusetts. It appeared on December 29, 1849 in the (Boston, Massachusetts) Christian Register. Sears is said to have written these words at the request of his friend, W. P. Lunt, a minister in Quincy, Massachusetts. In 1850 Richard Storrs Willis, a composer who trained under Felix Mendelssohn, as well as editor and critic for the New York Tribune, wrote the melody called "Carol". The tune used in England, called "Noel", was adapted from an English melody by the composer Arthur Sullivan.
This carol is also known by the title "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear".
* "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear" in The Army and Navy Hymnal, 1920
* "It Came upon a Midnight Clear" (unsourced)
# Horse shoes and horse shoeing: their origin, history, uses, and abuses

CONTENTS.
page
| CHAPTER I. | ​ | 1 |
The value of the Horse as a living Machine depends to a great extent upon his Feet. The care taken of them by Ancient People. Xenophon and his Advice. The necessity for Sound Feet. History of the Art of Shoeing. The Hoof in a Natural State. Effects of Domestication and Climate. The Persians, Ethiopians, Abyssinians, Tartars, Mongols, and other Nations. The Greeks. Difficulty in tracing the Origin of Shoeing. Scriptural Times. Homer, and ‘Brazen-Footed.’ Tryphiodorus. Bronze Shoes, and Shoeless Hoofs. Xenophon on the Management of Horses' Feet. Aristotle. Polydore Vergil. The Greek Marbles. Climate of Greece. Effects of Marching. Translators' and Commentators' Mistakes. Arrian and Artemidorus. The Coin of Tarentum.
| CHAPTER II. | ​ | 38 |
| CHAPTER III. | ​ | 95 |
| CHAPTER IV. | ​ | 167 |
| CHAPTER V. | ​ | 210 |
| CHAPTER VI. | ​ | 233 |
| CHAPTER VII. | ​ | 298 |
| CHAPTER VIII. | ​ | 333 |
| CHAPTER IX. | ​ | 390 |
| CHAPTER X. | ​ | 452 |
| CHAPTER XI. | ​ | 471 |
| CHAPTER XII. | ​ | 515 |
| CHAPTER XIII. | ​ | 558 |
| CHAPTER XIV. | ​ | 608 |
| CHAPTER XV. | ​ | 625 |
Progress of the Art of Farriery. Futile Attempts to Improve it. Disadvantages of Shoeing. Functions of the Foot to be Studied. Advantages of the Ancient System. German Shoeing and Hoof-paring. Its Evil Results. Traditional Shoeing. Routine. Erroneous Theories. Maltreatment of the Horse's Foot. Lafosse's Teaching. Requirements of Good Shoeing. Structure and Functions of the Hoof. Bad Shoeing. Rules to be Observed. Best Form of Shoe, and Method of Application. Hereditary Diseases. Shoeing in America and Arabia. Effects of European Shoeing. Dangers of Improper Shoeing. Scientific Application of the Farrier's Art. An Appeal to Horsemen.
# Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009

* related portals: United States House of Representatives.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
111TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. WHITFIELD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009'.

### SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES.

    (a) In General- Chapter 805 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
          `Sec. 80505. Transportation of horses
             `(a) Prohibition- No person may transport, or cause to be transported, a horse from a place in a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States through or to a place in another State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another.
             `(b) Civil Penalty- A person that knowingly violates this section is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of at least $100 but not more than $500 for each violation. A separate violation occurs under this section for each horse that is transported, or caused to be transported, in violation of this section. On learning of a violation, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action to collect the penalty in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the violation occurred or the defendant resides or does business.
             `(c) Motor Vehicle Defined- In this section, the term `motor vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public highways, but does not include a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
             `(d) Relationship to Other Laws- The penalty provided under this section shall be in addition to a penalty or remedy available under any other law or common law.'.
    (b) Conforming Amendment- The analysis for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
          `80505. Transportation of horses.'.