OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (254 U.S. 255)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
254 U.S. 255
United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (254 U.S. 255)
Argued: Oct. 12 and 13, 1916. ---
Restored to Docket for Reargument May 21, 1917.
Reargued Nov. 7, 1917.
Restored to Docket for Reargument June 10, 1918.
Submitted Oct. 17, 1919.
Restored to Docket for Oral Argument May 17, 1920.
Reargued Oct. 5, 1920.
Decided Dec. 6, 1920.
[Syllabus from pages 255-256 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Solicitors General Frierson and Davis and G. Carroll Todd, Asst. Atty. Gen., all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Messrs. N. W. Hacker, of New York City, F. W. Wheaton, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., E. H. Boles, of New York City, John G. Johnson, of Oneonta, N. Y., Everett Warren, of Scranton, Pa., John Hampton Barnes, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Allen McCulloh and Elihu Root, Jr., both of New York City, for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 413
United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc.
CALIFORNIA CO. et al.
v.
LEITER MINERALS, INC., et al.
No. 951. Supreme Court of the United States
June 1, 1965
Solicitor General Cox and Roger P. Marquis, for the United States.
Francis R. Kirkham, Turner H. McBaine Eugene D. Saunders and Charles D. Marshall, for California Co. and others.
Saul Stone and E. Drew McKinnis, for Buras and others.
On Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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
# United States v. Price (383 U.S. 787)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States v. Cecil Price, et al. 383 U.S. 787 (1966), also known as the Mississippi Burning trial, was one of the most famous criminal trials in American history. The United States charged a group of 18 men with conspiring in a Ku Klux Klan plot to murder three young civil rights workers (Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman) in Philadelphia, Mississippi on June 21, 1964 (see Mississippi civil rights workers murders). The trial, conducted in Meridian, Mississippi with U.S. District Court Judge W. Harold Cox presiding, resulted in convictions of 7 of the 18 defendants. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 787
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Cecil Ray PRICE et al.
Argued: Nov. 9, 1965. --- Decided: March 28, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 787-788 intentionally omitted]
ThurgoodMarshall, Sol. Gen., for appellant.
H. C. Mike Watkins, Meridian, Miss., for appellees.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# United States v. Price (361 U.S. 304)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 304
United States v. Price (361 U.S. 304)
Argued: Dec. 9, 1959. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1960
Mr. Howard A. Heffron, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. W. Lee McLane, Jr., Phoenix, Ariz., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# United States v. Pridgeon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
153 U.S. 48
United States v. Pridgeon
Sol. Gen. Maxwell, for the United States.
D. K. Watson, for appellee.
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
# Up the Street/Chapter 5
### V.

In Cambridge, in the Commonweath of Massachusetts, on the evening of the fifth of November, a little group of men sat at the operating table of the Varsity Club's consulting room. Upon their faces sat deeply graven consternation and doubt. At the eastern window an aggressive man of middle age stood peering out at the scattered lights of Linden Street, and the shadowy façade of the Union. Some one at the table stirred restlessly, and at the sound the man near the window faced sharply about.
"If it weren't for the line," he said savagely, "they'd have beaten us a hundred to nothing! What good is a defense like a brick wall if there isn't a man in the backfield who doesn't shut his eyes when he hits the line? Two lickings in succession—and we rushed the ball less than fifty yards altogether! Unless something's done about it now, we've as much chance at New Haven as a snowball will have by and by. If we couldn't beat 'em when we had Bull Blanding to take the ball, what chance have we got with that dainty, delicate bunch of backs this year? What? Well—what's the answer?"
The older coaches looked at each other, saying nothing. It had all been said after the last two games. The youngest coach smiled seriously, and kept counsel.
"If we could only get some pep into 'em!" jawed the aggressive man. "Come, who's got an idea? I'm dry."
"Wire Blanding," said the youngest coach.
"I wrote him two weeks ago—he said he's too busy."
"Wire him."
"He won't come. He's the only man I know who could fill the bill, but he wouldn't come last year, and he won't come now. He's working on some harebrained literary rot he thinks is important. Piffle!"
"He'll come," contradicted the youngest coach. "He'll come if you get him right."
"I'll be interested to know," said the head coach stiffly, "why he'll come for you if he won't for me."
"Write out a telegram," suggested the junior, "and then I'll tell you."
The head coach stared aggressively for a moment.
"Oh, all right," he said shortly, and took to scratching with a fountain pen. The younger man also wrote.
"Here," said the head coach. "What's the matter with this?
{{fine block|"Hector Blanding, Olympus, Ohio: We greatly need you to assist in coaching the backs. Loyalty to the university demands your presence, if possible. W. H. Prince."
"That's pretty punk, Prince! This is what we'll send. Listen:
"Harvard 0, Amherst 10. Backfield averages 151 pounds, and gained 24 yards by rushing. Odds now 3 to 1 on Yale. When do you arrive?
"That," said its author complacently, "isn't so blamed dignified, but it'll bring Blanding in two jumps."
"Somebody ring for a boy," commanded Prince. "Well, then, if we have Hector Blanding to coach the backs——"
# Tyler v. North Carolina/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 775
Tyler v. North Carolina
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct.

## 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
# Tyler v. North Carolina

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 775
Tyler v. North Carolina
Tyler, pro se.
Thomas Wade Bruton, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, and Ralph Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
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
# Utah Power Light Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 389
Utah Power Light Company v. United States
Argued: October 11 and 12, 1916. --- Decided: March 19, 1917
[Syllabus from pages 389-391 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Graham Sumner and William V. Hodges for the Utah Power & Light Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 391-396 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Clyde C. Dawson, Frank H. Short, H. R. Waldo, Frank J. Gustin, Charles A. Gillette, and Dean F. Brayton for the Beaver River Power Company.
Mr. Albert R. Barnes, Attorney General of Utah, Mr. Fred Farrar, Attorney General of Colorado, Mr. J. H. Peterson, Attorney General of Idaho, Mr. George B. Thacher, Attorney General of Nevada, Mr. Willis E. Reed. Attorney General of Nebraska, and Messrs. Frank H. Short, Clyde C. Dawson and S. A. Bailey heard on behalf of the state of Utah and other states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 396-398 intentionally omitted]
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 399-401 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John R. Dixon and William B. Bosley as amici curiae
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
# Utah Power Light Company v. Pfost

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
286 U.S. 165
Utah Power Light Company v. Pfost
Argued: April 13, 1932. --- Decided: May 16, 1932
[Syllabus from pages 165-167 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John F. MacLane, of New York City, for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 167-171 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Sidman I. Barber, of Boise, Idaho, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 171-175 intentionally omitted]
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
# Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 464
UTAH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY et al.
Argued: April 29, 1969. --- Decided: June 16, 1969
[Syllabus from pages 464-465 intentionally omitted]
Vernon B. Romney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant.
Leon Payne, Houston, Tex., for appellee, El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Richard B. Hooper, Seattle, Wash., for appellees, Cascade Natural Gas Corp., et al.
John F. Sonnett, New York City, for appellee, Colorado Interstate Corp.
Iver E. Skjeie for appellee, State of California.
Sol. Gen. Irwin N. Griswold for appellee, The United States, at the invitation of Court.
William M. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal., consumer spokesman.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 685
Utah Pie Company v. Continental Baking Company
Argued: Jan. 17, 1967. --- Decided: April 24, 1967
See 387 U.S. 949, 87 S.Ct. 2071.
Joseph L. Alioto, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
John H. Schafer, Washington, D.C., Peter W. Billings, Salt Lake City, Utah, and George P. Lamb, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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
# United States v. Rabinowitz
## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 56
United States v. Rabinowitz
Argued: Jan. 11, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 20, 1950
Mr. Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Abraham Lillienthal, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# United States v. R. P. Andrews & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
207 U.S. 229
United States v. R. P. Andrews & Company
Argued: and submitted November 8, 11, 1907. --- Decided: December 2, 1907
Assistant Attorney General Van Orsdel and Mr. Charles F. Kincheloe for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 230 intentionally omitted]
Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for appellee.
Mr. Justice White 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
# United States v. R. F. Ball Construction Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 587
United States v. R. F. Ball Construction Company
Argued: Jan. 27, 1958. --- Decided: March 3, 1958
The judgment is reversed. The instrument involved being inchoate and unperfected, the provisions of § 3672(a), Revenue Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 449, as amended, 53 Stat. 882, 56 Stat. 957, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3672(a), do not apply. See United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53; United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 86-87, 74 S.Ct. 367, 370-371, 98 L.Ed. 520. The claim of the interpleader for its costs is controlled by United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 215, 75 S.Ct. 247, 99 L.Ed. 268.
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice HARLAN join, 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
# United States v. R. F. Downing & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
201 U.S. 354
United States v. R. F. Downing & Company
Argued: March 2, 1906. --- Decided: April 2, 1906
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds and Solicitor General Hoyt for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 354-355 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. Stuart Tompkins and Comstock & Washburn for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 355-356 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# United States v. Rabinowich

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
238 U.S. 78
United States v. Rabinowich
Argued: April 7, 1915. --- Decided: June 1, 1915
Assistant Attorney General Warren for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 79-80 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. William R. Harr and Charles H. Bates for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 81-83 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Pitney 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
# Van Rensselaer v. Kearney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 297
Van Rensselaer v. Kearney

## 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
# Van Riswick v. Spalding

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
117 U.S. 370
Van Riswick v. Spalding
Argued: March 22, 1886. ---
T. A. Lambert, for appellant.
Leigh Robinson, for appellees.
GRAY, 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
# Van Rensselaer v. Watts's Executors

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
48 U.S. 784
Van Rensselaer v. Watts's Executors
Mr. Blunt, of counsel for the appellant in this cause, moved he court to direct the clerk to docket the case as of the time when the transcript of the record was received by him, and in support of his motion said, that this record was forwarded to the clerk early in 1848. That it was only recently he learned that the clerk had declined filing or docketing it, until the bond prescribed by the thirty-seventh rule of court was given. That his client supposed, when he gave bond in the Circuit Court, that he had done all that the law required him to do. That the record had been lying in the clerk's office about a year, during which some sixty cases had been docketed. That the bond was now filed, as prescribed by the rule, and that the case ought to be docketed as of the day the record was deposited in the office.
Mr. Seward, for appellees, united in the application.
This motion was made on the 9th of March, when the court took time to consider.
On the 12th, Mr. Chief Justice TANEY announced the decision of the court as follows:--

## 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
# Van Rensselaer v. Watts's Executors/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
48 U.S. 784
Van Rensselaer v. Watts's Executors
On consideration of the motion made in this cause, on the 9th instant, by Mr. Blunt, of counsel for the appellant, to direct the clerk to docket this case as of the time when the transcript of the record was received by him, and to which Mr. Seward, of counsel for the appellees, assented, this court consider the practice established by the decision in Owings v. Tiernan, 10 Peters, and do not wish to disturb it; whereupon it is now here ordered by this court, that the said motion be, and the same is hereby, overruled.

## 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
# Van Reynegan v. Bolton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 33
Van Reynegan v. Bolton
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. B. S. Brooks for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Warren v. Keep

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
155 U.S. 265
Warren v. Keep
Esek Cowen, for appellants.
N. Davenport, for appellee.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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
# Warren v. Larson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 427
Warren v. Larson
See 370 U.S. 920, 82 S.Ct. 1559.
Walter Warren, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. of Florida, and Robert J. Kelly and Gerald Mager, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
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
# Warren v. Larson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 427
Warren v. Larson
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Mr Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice WHITE 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
# Warren Wheeler v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 478
Warren Wheeler v. United States
Argued: December 4, 1912. --- Decided: January 6, 1913
Messrs. Nathan Matthews, William G. Thompson, and Romney Spring for plaintiffs in error and appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 478-481 intentionally omitted]
Solicitor General Bullitt and Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendant in error and appellee.
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
# Warren v. King

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
108 U.S. 389
Warren v. King
G. P. Lowrey, for appellants.
E. M. Johnson, Benj. Harrison, and W. H. Peckham, for appellees.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Undine (1909)/Undine

This version is a modified reprinting of the original translation of W. L. Courtney, which was published 1909. Undine was originally published, in the German, in 1811.
UNDINE
This is the story of the Knight Huldbrand of
Ringstetten and of Undine, telling how the Knight wedded with a water-sprite, and what chanced therefrom: and how the Knight died and was buried: and how Undine returned to her element beneath the Mediterranean Sea.
# Undine (Fouqué/Bunnett)

* "Undine" in Undine, and Other Tales (1867) (IA)
* "Selections from Undine" in The German Classics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (1913) (transcription project)
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Undue Significance a starving man attaches

* "Undue significance a starving man attaches" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* "Undue significance a starving man attaches" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)