OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# McDonald v. United States (304 U.S. 564)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 564
McDonald v. United States (304 U.S. 564)
Mr. Claude L. Dawson, of Washington, D. C., 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
# McDonald v. United States (335 U.S. 451)/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Jackson
* Dissenting Opinion Burton
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 451
McDonald v. United States (335 U.S. 451)
Argued: Oct, 13, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1948
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.
Mr. Justrice RUTLEDGE concurs in the result, and in the opinion insofar as it relates to the petitioner McDonald. With respect to the petitioner Washington he is of the view that the evidence, having been illegally obtained, was inadmissible. Cf. Malinski v. People of State of New York, 324 U.S. 401, opinion dissenting in part page 420, at pages 430-432, 65 S.Ct. 781, 790, at pages 795, 796, 89 L.Ed. 1029.

## 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
# McDonald v. United States (279 U.S. 12)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 12
McDonald v. United States
Argued: Jan. 10, 1929. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1929
Messrs. J. Harry Covington and Dean G. Acheson, both of Washington, D. C., and William K. Jackson, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 13-16 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General and Mr. George C. Gutte, of San Juan, Porto Rico, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 17 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# McDonald v. United States (335 U.S. 451)

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Jackson

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 451
McDonald v. United States (335 U.S. 451)
Argued: Oct, 13, 1948. --- Decided: Dec 13, 1948
Messrs. John Lewis Smith, Jr. and Charles . Ford, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Frederick Bernays Wiener, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# My Nannie O/The Beggar Girl

THE BEGGAR GIRL.
# My Old Kentucky Home (song sheet)

The sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home;
Stephen Foster My Old Kentucky Home 1.jpg
MY OLD KENTUCKY HOME.
The sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home, 'Tis summer, the darkies are gay, The corn tops ripe, and the meadows are in bloom, While the birds make music all the day. The young folks roll on the little cabin floor, All merry, all happy and bright; Bye an bye, Hard Times comes a knocking at the door, Then my old Kentucky home, good night.
Chorus— Weep no more, my lady, oh weep no more to-day, We will sing one song for the old kentucky home For the old Kentucky home, far away. Weep no more, my lady, weep no more to-day, We will sing one song for the old kentucky home, For the old Kentucky home, far away.
They hunt no more for the possum or the coon, On the meadow, the hill, and the shore, They sing no more by the glimmer of the moon, On the bench by the old cabin door; The day goes by like a shadow o'er the heart, With sorrow, where all was delight, The time has come when the darkies have to part, Then, my old Kentucky home, good night.
Weep no more, etc.
The head must bow, and the back will have to bend, Wherever the darkey may go; A few more days, and the trouble all will end, In the field where the sugar cane grow, A few more days for to tote the weary load, No matter, 'twill never be light, A few more days till we totter on the road, Then, my old kentucky home, good night.
Weep no more, etc.
THOMAS G. DOYLE,
BOOKSELLER, STATIONER, AND SONG PUBLISHER,
No. 297 GAY STREET, BALTIMORE, Md.
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
# My Nannie O/The Lass o' Aranteenie

THE LASS O' ARRANTEENIE.
Tune—"I had a horse.
# My Old Kentucky Home

Anti-slavery ballad, composed 1852 and published 1853, inspired by Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, originally titled "Poor Uncle Tom Good Night" but later retitled by Foster.
* "Poor Uncle Tom Good Night", from Foster's notebook (1852). (transcription project)
* "My Old Kentucky Home", song sheet (late 19th century).
* "My Old Kentucky Home" in Poems That Every Child Should Know (1904).
* "My Old Kentucky Home" in The Canadian Soldiers' Song Book (c. 1917).
# My Neighbor's Wife

Extracted from Smart Set magazine, Nov 1916, p. 248.
MY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE
By William F. Jenkins
SHE is thin and angular. Her features are sharp, her hands are boney, and she takes no care of her nails. She meddles. There is no gossip that she does not know and peddle for other choice bits of scandal. She spies on her other neighbors, and tattles, to make trouble. Her figure is that of an ironing-board. She is an economical woman—her children look half-fed.
I look at her and wonder. Years ago, I called her “Honey!”
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 1975, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 48 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
# Midway Company v. Eaton

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Midway Company v. Eaton."
* 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.
* Midway Company v. Eaton (183 U.S. 602)
* Midway Company v. Eaton (183 U.S. 619)
# Midway Company v. Eaton (183 U.S. 619)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
183 U.S. 619
Midway Company v. Eaton (183 U.S. 619)
Messrs. Walter Ayers and P. H. Seymour for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Jed L. Washburn, Luther C. Harris, Charles A. Towne, and William D. Bailey for defendant in error.
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
# Midsummer Night's Dream (Shakespeare)

* related portals: Elizabethan drama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
A Midsummer Night's Dream was likely written 1595–1596.
* A Midsommer Nights Dreame, from a facsimile copy of the First Folio (1623) (transcription project)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, from The Plays of William Shakespeare, in eight volumes, vol. I, with notes by Samuel Johnson (1765) (external scan)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, edited by Edmund K. Chambers, The Warwick Shakespeare (1897)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, edited by Henry Cuningham, The Works of Shakespeare, The Arden Shakespeare, 1st ser., 1st edition (1905) (HathiTrust)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, edited by Henry Cuningham, The Works of Shakespeare, The Arden Shakespeare, 1st ser., 2nd edition (1922)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, in The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Vol. II, Oxford edition (1910)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, illustrated by W. Heath Robinson (1914) (transcription project)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, illustrated by Arthur Rackham (1914)
* A Midsummer Night's Dream, edited by Willard Higley Durham, The Yale Shakespeare (1918)
* A Midsummer-Night's Dream, in The Works of Shakespeare, The New Shakespeare (1924) (HathiTrust)

### See also

* "Over Hill, Over Dale", song from Act 2, scene 1
* "You Spotted Snakes", song from Act 2, scene 2
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Midway Company v. Eaton (183 U.S. 619)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
183 U.S. 619
Midway Company v. Eaton (183 U.S. 619)
This action was brought by the Germania Iron Company against the defendants in error in the district court of St. Louis county, state of Minnesota, to determine adverse claims to the S. E. 1/4 of the N. W. 1/4 of section 30, T. 63 N., of range 11 W., of the fourth principal meridian, according to the government survey in said St. Louis county.
Pending the action the land was conveyed to the Midway Company, and the latter company was substituted as plaintiff for the Germania Company.
Plaintiff in error claims title under a patent issued by the United States to Emil Hartman, dated October 21, 1895, by whom the land was conveyed to the Germania Company, and by the latter to the plaintiff in error.
The defendants claim title under a certain location of Sioux half-breed scrip issued under the act of July 17, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 304, chap. 83).
The trial court rendered judgment for defendants, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and this writ of error was then allowed by the Chief Justice of that court.
The facts of this case are the same, and are presented upon exactly the same record, the same assignments of error and contentions as in Midway Co. v. Eaton, No. 80, just decided, 183 U.S. --, ante, 261, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261. On the authority of that case the judgment of the Supreme Court 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
# Midwinter

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Midwinter."
* 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.
* Midwinter (1923), a novel by John Buchan
* "Mid-winter" (1923, "The sky is white"), a poem by Elizabeth Jane Coatsworth

## See also

* Winter
# Midwinter (Buchan)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
At first glance another romance about of of the ill-fated attempts of Charles Stuart to seat himself on the throne occupied by George I would seem to be superfluous. But John Buchanan has mixed his ingredients well. The well-known story of indecision, bad management, and inertia has been coated over with intrigue and mystery until it fairly shines. There are the Spoonbills, the men of Old England, led by the philosophical Master Midwinter, who live in the forest and can be summoned by certain ditty whistled where a tuft of broom is tied to the signpost at a crossroads. […] And last of all there is Samuel Johnson, not yet the great lexicographer but a poor, ill, clumsy young tutor who loves the lady, too, albeit hopelessly, and is downhearted because he is not permitted to go off to the wars. […] Altogether this tale is, besides being highly diverting, more intelligent than most. (—Extracted from the Forum, 1924. Full review (with spoilers) on the Discussion page.)
MIDWINTER
CERTAIN TRAVELLERS IN OLD ENGLAND
BY JOHN BUCHAN
THOMAS NELSON AND SONS, Ltd. LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE PRESS OF THE PUBLISHERS
TO VERNON WATNEY
We two confess twin loyalties— Wychwood beneath the April skies Is yours, and many a scented road That winds in June by Evenlode. Not less when autumn fires the brake, Yours the deep heath by Fannich's lake, The corries where the dun deer roar And eagles wheel above Sgurr Mór. So I, who love with equal mind The southern sun, the northern wind, The lilied lowland water-mead And the grey hills that cradle Tweed, Bring you this tale which haply tries To intertwine our loyalties.

### CONTENTS

* Preface*
* I. In which a Highland Gentleman misses his Way 15
* II. In which a Nobleman is Perplexed 33
* III. In which Private Matters cut across Affairs of State 55
* IV. Mr Kyd of Greyhouses 66
* V. Chance-Medley 78
* VI. Introduces the Runaway Lady 94
* VII. How a Man may hunt with the Hounds and yet run with the Hare 106
* VIII. Broom at the Cross-Roads 120
* IX. Old England 132
* X. Snowbound at the sleeping Deer 146
* XI. Night at the Same: Two Visitors 164
* XII. The Hut in the Oak Shaw 175
* XIII. Journeyman John 188
* XIV. Duchess Kitty on the Road 200
* XV. Bids Farewell to a Scots Laird 212
* XVI. Bids Farewell to an English Lady 230
* XVII. Ordeal of Honour 240
* XVIII. In which Three Gentlemen confess their Nakedness 257
* XIX. Ramoth-Gilead 270
* Not included in the listing
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 1940, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 83 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
# Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15)/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Douglas Brennan
Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
In my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, post, p. 73, decided this date, I noted that I had no occasion to consider the extent of state power to regulate the distribution of sexually oriented material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults. In the case before us, appellant was convicted of distributing obscene matter in violation of California Penal Code §311.2, on the basis of evidence that he had caused to be mailed unsolicited brochures advertising various books and a movie. I need not now decide whether a statute might be drawn to impose, within the requirements of the First Amendment, criminal penalties for the precise conduct at issue here. For it is clear that under my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I, the statute under which the prosecution was brought is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face.↑ "[T]he transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing 'attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.'" Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521 (1972), quoting [p. 48] from Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). See also Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 366 (1964); Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 616 (1971); id., at 619-620 (White, J., dissenting); United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1960); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963). Since my view in Paris Adult Theatre I represents a substantial departure from the course of our prior decisions, and since the state courts have as yet had no opportunity to consider whether a "readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the [statute] in a single prosecution," Dombrowski v. Pfister, supra, at 491, I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court and remand the case for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. See Coates v. City of Cincinnati, supra, at 616.

#### Notes

‡ ↑ . Cal. Penal Code §311.2 (a) provides that "Every person who knowingly: sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state prepares, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent to distribute or to exhibit or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor."
# Miller v. California (540 U.S. 1009)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Supreme Court of the United States
540 U.S. 1009
Miller v. California
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District
No. 03-6564
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
# Miller v. California (389 U.S. 968)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 968
Miller v. California
F. Lee Bailey and Alan M. Dershowitz, for petitioner.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

## 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
# Miller v. California (392 U.S. 616)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Marshall
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 616
Miller v. California
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Miller v. California (389 U.S. 968)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 968
Miller v. California
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Whether the introduction of admissions made to an undercover agent planted in petitioner's jail cell constituted a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination.
'2. Whether inculpatory admissions, obtained under circumstances like those here involved, can ever constitute harmless error.'
The case is placed on the summary calendar.

## 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
# Miller v. California (392 U.S. 616)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Marshall
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 616
Miller v. California
Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District
No. 154. Argued: March 26, 1968. --- Decided: June 17, 1968.
245 Cal. App. 2d 112, 53 Cal. Rptr. 720, certiorari dismissed.
F. Lee Bailey argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Alan M. Dershowitz.
Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General.
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
# Mussina v. Cavazos

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 355
Mussina v. Cavazos
MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; the case being thus:
The twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act provides that
'Judgments and decrees of the District Courts may be re-examined, and affirmed or reversed in a Circuit Court, upon a writ of error, whereto shall be annexed and returned therewith, at the day and place therein mentioned, an authenticated transcript of the record, an assignment of errors, and a prayer for reversal; with a citation, &c. And upon like process may judgment in the Circuit Courts be re-examined in the Supreme Court.'
In this case there was only a copy of the writ annexed to the transcript; but the plaintiff in error had filed an affidavit by which it appeared that during the late civil war, the records of the court had been almost entirely burnt up, and he swore that, as he verily believed, there were none of the original papers of the cause now in existence. Assuming the copy of the writ of error thus returned with the transcript to have been a true copy, then the clerk had made his writ to run thus:
'Because in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of judgment of a plea which is in said District Court before you, in which Simon Mussina is plaintiff in error and Maria Josefa Cavazos and Estefana Goascochea de Cortina are defendants in error, manifest error hath happened to the great damage of the said Simon Mussina,' &c.
The writ, it will be observed, did not say who was plaintiff below and who there defendants; though the description of the parties, as they appeared in this court, was correct. The petii on for the writ of effor, as contained in the transcript of the record, describes the parties thus:
'In a certain cause wherein Maria Josefa Cavazos and Estefana Goascochea de Cortina were plaintiffs and Simon Mussina defendant, a final judgment was rendered,' &c.
The bond given by plaintiff in error described the parties in the same manner.
Messrs. Robinson and Hale rested their motion to dismiss on the ground, 1st, that the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act above quoted made it indispensable to the jurisdiction of this court that the writ of error itself annexed to the transcript, should be returned therewith; that here the writ of error was not returned, relying in support of their view on this point upon Castro v. United States, and the previous case of Villabolos v. Same; and 2d, that admitting that a copy might be substituted for the writ, and that the copy here was a true one, the parties to the suit had been fatally misdescribed in the original.
Messrs, Sherwood and Edmunds, contra.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ 3 Wallace, 46.
* ↑ 6 Howard, 81.
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
# Mustin v. Cadwalader

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
123 U.S. 369
Mustin v. Cadwalader
H. E. Tremain, Mason W. Tyler, and F. P. Prichard, for plaintiffs in error.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for defendant in error.
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