OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Salamanca Township v. Wilson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
109 U.S. 627
Salamanca Township v. Wilson
Wallace Pratt, for plaintiff in error.
Jas. S. Botsford, and Jos. Shippen, for defendant in error.
WAITE, C. J.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 646
Saldana v. United States
Argued: March 20, 1961. --- Decided: April 3, 1961
The petitioner was convicted on four counts of a five-count indictment charging offenses under the narcotics laws. 21 U.S.C. § 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. He complains of a number of alleged trial errors. In addition, he points to a series of events occurring during the course of the prosecution which, he says, operated to deprive him of constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is unncessary to detail here the course of those proceedings, since we are advised that a change in the calendar system of the District Court for the Southern District of California insures that what occurred in this case will not occur again.
During oral argument in this Court the Solicitor General suggested that the combination of circumstances in this case, beginning with one judge's clearly expressed intention to impose a five-year sentence, and ending with another judge's imposition of a twenty-year sentence under the indictment, was not consistent with that regularity and fairness which should characterize the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts. In the light of the Solicitor General's suggestion, and upon an independent examination of the record, we have concluded that a due regard for the fair administration of justice requires that the convictions under counts 3, 4, and 5 of the indictment be set aside. 28 U.S.C. § 2106, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106; see Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124, 76 S.Ct. 663, 668, 100 L.Ed. 1003; Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 14, 77 S.Ct. 1, 8, 1 L.Ed.2d 1; Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250. Cf. Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490. The conviction under count 2, to which the petitioner originally pleaded guilty, is affirmed.
Because of this disposition of the case, we do not reach for consideration the alleged trial errors with respect to limitation of cross-examination, sufficiency of the evidence of a 'sale' under count 5, and instructions to the jury as to entrapment.
So ordered.
Convictions on three counts set aside, and conviction on one count 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
# Sale of Food (Prohibition of Chewing Gum) Regulations 2003

Layout 2
​First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 30th December 2003 at 5:00 pm.
SALE OF FOOD ACT (CHAPTER 283)
SALE OF FOOD (PROHIBITION OF CHEWING GUM) REGULATIONS 2003
ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS
| Regulation | |
| 1. | Citation and commencement |
| 2. | Sale or advertisement for sale of chewing gum prohibited |
| 3. | Penalty |
| 4. | Revocation |
| 5. | Savings |
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 56 (1) of the Sale of Food Act, the Minister for National Development hereby makes the following Regulations:
Citation and commencement
1. These Regulations may be cited as the Sale of Food (Prohibition of Chewing Gum) Regulations 2003 and shall come into operation on 1st January 2004.
Sale or advertisement for sale of chewing gum prohibited
2.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the sale or advertisement for sale of any chewing gum is prohibited.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the sale or advertisement of any chewing gum in respect of which a product licence has been granted under the Medicines Act (Cap. 176).
(3) In this regulation, "chewing gum" means the substance usually known as chewing gum, bubble gum or dental chewing gum, or any like substance prepared from a gum base of vegetable or synthetic origin and intended for chewing.
​Penalty
3. Any person who contravenes regulation 2 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.
Revocation
4. The Food (Prohibition of Chewing Gum) Regulations (Rg 2) are revoked.
Savings
5. Nothing in these Regulations shall be construed to limit or in any way affect the operation of any other written law.
Made this 29th day of December 2003.
PETER CHAN JER HING Permanent Secretary, Ministry of National Development, Singapore.
This work is Singaporean legislation (Act of Parliament or subsidiary legislation), which is copyrighted in Singapore for 70 years after publication pursuant to
* sections 114(1) and 136(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 2021, or
* section 197(3)(b) of the repealed Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.) for legislation published before 21 November 2021.
However, as an edict of a government, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Salammbo

Warning: template has been deprecated.
English-language translations of Salammbo include:
* Salammbô, 1862 translation by Eleanor Marx-Aveling
* Salammbô, 1886 translation by May French Sheldon
* Salammbo, 1913 translation by J.C. Chartres
# Richardson v. City of Boston

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Richardson v. City of Boston."
* 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.
* Richardson v. City of Boston (60 U.S. 263)
* Richardson v. City of Boston (65 U.S. 188)
# Richardson v. Belcher

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Marshall
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 78
Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Belcher
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
No. 70-53 Argued: October 13, 1971 --- Decided: November 22, 1971
Section 224 of the Social Security Act, which requires a reduction in social security benefits to reflect workmen's compensation payments, has a rational basis and does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
317 F. Supp. 1294, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 84. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 88.
Richard B. Stone argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Gray, and Kathryn H. Baldwin.
John Charles Harris argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee.
William E. Miller and Richard A. Whiting filed a brief for the American Mutual Insurance Alliance et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Edward J. Kionka for the American Trial Lawyers Association, and by Edward L. Carey, Harrison Combs, and M.E. Boiarsky for United Mine Workers of America.

## 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
# Richardson v. Chicago Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 646
Richardson v. Chicago Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company

## 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
# Richardson v. City of Boston (60 U.S. 263)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 263
Richardson v. City of Boston
[MR. JUSTICE CURTIS, HAVING BEEN OF COUNSEL, DID NOT SIT IN THIS CAUSE.]

## 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
# Richardson v. Chicago Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 646
Richardson v. Chicago Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas.
No opinion filed in court below.
The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied, for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted finds no ground upon which writ of certiorari should be granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is therefore also 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
# Royal Naval Biography/Clinch, Timothy

Layout 2
TIMOTHY CLINCH, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1812.]
Was made Lieutenant in Aug. 1798; and Commander, Mar. 22, 1803. We subsequently find him in the Busy sloop, protecting the trade bound to Halifax and Newfoundland.
On the 13th April, 1804, Captain Clinch sailed from Portsmouth for the West India station; where he removed to the Osprey 18, in which vessel he captured le Teaser, French privateer, of 7 guns and 51 men, May 17, 1805. On the 27th June following, being then about 60 leagues to the N.E. of Barbuda, in company with the Kingfisher sloop, Captain Richard William Cribb, he was pursued by five French frigates; but no sooner did the enemy observe the Osprey and her consort hoist signals and fire guns, as if to a fleet a-head of them, than they relinquished the chase, and set fire to fifteen British merchant vessels under their charge, which had been captured about three weeks before, by the French and Spanish combined squadrons under Mons. Villeneuve: by this successful ruse on the part of Captains Cribb and Clinch, our inveterate enemies were deprived of booty which they valued at upwards of 200,000l.
In July, 1812, one of the Osprey’s boats, in company with another belonging to the Britomart brig, captured l’Eole French privateer, of 6 guns and 31 men, to the N.W. of Heligoland. In this spirited enterprise, which was conducted by Lieutenant Henry Dixon, of the Britomart, the British had ​2 killed; 5 dangerously, 3 severely, and 4, including the commanding officer, slightly wounded.
Captain Clinch’s post commission bears date Aug. 12, 1812.
# Royal Naval Biography/Clyde, Charles

Layout 2
CHARLES CLYDE, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant in 1794 ; and advanced to his present rank, whilst serving as first of the York 74, on the 21st Oct. 1810. He married, April 20th, 1818, a daughter of the Rev. William Milton, vicar of Heckfield, co. Hants.
# Royal Naval Biography/Clephane, Robert

Layout 2
ROBERT CLEPHANE, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1811.]
Brother to the late Major-General David Clephane, M.P. for the shire of Kinross, N.B.
This officer received his first commission early in 1793; and was wounded when serving as senior Lieutenant of the Courageux 74, at the capture of four French line-of-battle ships, by the squadron under Sir Richard J. Strachan, Nov. 4, 1805: his promotion to the rank of Commander took place Dec. 24 in the same year.
Captain Clephane’s subsequent appointments were, about Mar. 1807, to the Charles hired armed vessel; Oct. following, to the Nautilus a new brig of the largest class; and, April, 1808, to the Acorn, an 18-gun ship-sloop, in which he remained until posted, Feb. 14, 1811. The Charles was principally employed in the Baltic, and the Acorn, on the Mediterranean station.
The subject of this brief sketch died at Inveresk, N.B. in 1827.
* ↑ See Vol. I. pp. 289 and 570 .
* ↑ See Captains Edward Chetham and John Duff Markland.
# Royal Naval Biography/Clowes, Thomas Ball

Layout 2
THOMAS BALL CLOWES, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1823.]
Is the son of a deceased medical gentleman, formerly resident at Sandwich. He served as midshipman under Commodore (now Sir Edward W. C. R.) Owen; passed his examination in April, 1809; obtained the rank of lieutenant, Dec. 26th, in the same year; and was appointed to the Hamadryad frigate. Captain Sir Thomas Staines, about June, 1810. His commission as commander bears date March 23d, 1812.
Captain Clowes’s subsequent appointments were, June 2d, 1812, to the Sparrowhawk brig, of 18 guns, employed in the Mediterranean; and, May 22d, 1821, to the Rose 18, about to be launched at Portsmouth, in which vessel he sailed for the above station, on the 20th August following. He obtained post rank May 16th, 1823.
Agent.– W. M‘Inerheny, Esq.
# Royal Naval Biography/Cobbe, William

Layout 2
WILLIAM COBBE, Esq. [Commander.]
Passed his examination, and was made a lieutenant, in Nov. 1809. He obtained the rank of commander on the 7th June, 1814; and died near Dublin, July 8th, 1831, aged 40 years.
# Relativity (1931)/Section 32

Layout 2
New York: Peter Smith, pages 135–137
XXXII
THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
ACCORDING to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of the matter as being something that is known. We know from experience that, for a suitably chosen co-ordinate system, the velocities of the stars are small as compared with the velocity of transmission of light. We can thus as a rough approximation arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of the universe as a whole, if we treat the matter as being at rest.
We already know from our previous discussion that the behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks is influenced by gravitational fields, i.e. by the distribution of matter. This in itself is sufficient to exclude the possibility of the exact validity of Euclidean geometry in our universe. But it is conceivable that our universe differs only slightly ​from a Euclidean one, and this notion seems all the more probable, since calculations show that the metrics of surrounding space is influenced only to an exceedingly small extent by masses even of the magnitude of our sun. We might imagine that, as regards geometry, our universe behaves analogously to a surface which is irregularly curved in its individual parts, but which nowhere departs appreciably from a plane: something like the rippled surface of a lake. Such a universe might fittingly be called a quasi-Euclidean universe. As regards its space it would be infinite. But calculation shows that in a quasi-Euclidean universe the average density of matter would necessarily be nil. Thus such a universe could not be inhabited by matter everywhere; it would present to us that unsatisfactory picture which we portrayed in Section XXX.
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be ​necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
Footnotes
# Scott v. Germano/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 407
Scott v. Germano
Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs in the result.
Mo. Justice GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# Scott v. Jones Lessee of Detroit Young Men's Society

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
46 U.S. 343
Scott v. Jones Lessee of Detroit Young Men's Society

## 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
# Scott v. Ellery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
142 U.S. 381
Scott v. Ellery

## 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
# Scott v. Frazier/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 243
Scott v. Frazier
Argued: April 19 and 20, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1920
This suit, so far as the merits are concerned, is like No. 811, just decided. 253 U.S. 233, 40 Sup. Ct. 499, 64 L. Ed. --. It was brought in the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota to enjoin the payment of public funds in the state treasury and the issuing of state bonds under the Constitution and laws of North Dakota. We have sufficiently stated the nature of this Constitution and the laws involved in the opinion in No. 811.
The jurisdiction was invoked because of alleged violation of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complainants were taxpayers of North Dakota, who alleged that suit was brought on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of the state. There was no diversity of citizenship and jurisdiction was rested solely upon the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The District Court rendered a decree dismissing the bill on the merits; the judge stating that he was of opinion that there was no jurisdiction, and directing the dismissal on the merits to prevent delay, and to permit the suit being brought here by a single appeal.
There is no allegation that the loss or injury to any complainant amounts to the sum of $3,000. It is well settled that in such cases as this the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U.S. 379, 21 Sup. Ct. 402, 45 L. Ed. 583; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 Sup. Ct. 217, 60 L. Ed. 469.
The District Court was right in its conclusion that there was no jurisdiction. The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.
So ordered.

## 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
# Scott v. Ezra

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
32 U.S. 596
Scott v. Ezra

## 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
# Scott v. Germano

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 407
Scott v. Germano
Don H. Reuben, Howard J. Trienens and D. Lawrence Gunnels, for appellants.
Bernard Kleiman and Lester Asher, for Germano and others.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen. of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Kerner and others.
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
# Scott v. Frazier

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
253 U.S. 243
Scott v. Frazier
Argued: April 19 and 20, 1920. --- Decided: June 1, 1920
Messrs. N. C. Young, of Fargo, N. D., and Tracy R. Bangs and C. J. Murphy, both of Grand Forks, N. D., for appellants.
Messrs. S. L. Nuchols, of Mandan, N. D., W. S. Lander, of Wahpeton, N. D., and Frederick A. Pike, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court by Mr. Justice DAY.

## 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
# Saturn

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Saturn."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, 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.
* Saturn, a poem by Clark Ashton Smith.
* Saturn, a poem by John Cowper Powys.
* "Saturn (god)," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Saturn (planet)," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
* "Saturn (mythology)," in The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Co. (1914)
# Saturday night

Saturday Night
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN Wm. READY & ROBERT WISE, AT THE PAY TABLE.
TO WHICH IS ADDED, THE Toper's Tale, OVER HIS JUG OF ALE; Being a particular account of a merry day's drinking, with all the circumstances of the Robbery, and a full History of the Battle.
AYR: Printed by D. Macarter & Co.
1817.
* Saturday Night
* Toper's Tale
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