OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# McCullough v. Kammerer Corporation (323 U.S. 327)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
323 U.S. 327
McCullough v. Kammerer Corporation
Argued: Dec. 11, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1945
Mr. A. W. Boyken, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. Leonard S. Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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
# Massachusetts v. Painten

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Fortas

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 560
Massachusetts v. Painten
Argued: Oct. 18, 1967. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1968
Elliot L. Richardson, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Louis M. Nordlinger, Boston, Mass., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Fortas
* Dissenting Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 560
Massachusetts v. Painten
Argued: Oct. 18, 1967. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1968
Mr. Justice FORTAS, concurring.
The dissent written by my Brother WHITE, with whom my Brothers HARLAN, and STEWART join, impels me to add this note. I agree with the Court's action in dismissing the writ of certiorari for having been improvidently granted because the record is not adequate for disposition of the case in terms of its constitutional problems. Mr. Justice WHITE'S opinion is not in disagreement on this point. He would remand the case for a purpose which seems to me to be unreal: that is, to hold an inquiry, almost 10 years after the event, as to 'whether Officer Rufo could have believed that the bag had been abandoned and whether the bag was searched before or after guns were observed.' This inquiry-at this late date-is as elusive as an attempt to capture last night's moonbeam.
As some of my colleagues have often said, we do not sit as a court of criminal appeals to review judgments of state courts. The question in the instant case comes here as a result of federal habeas corpus proceedings. We should consider it if, and only if, we should and can dispose of it on its record in terms of constitutional principle. The Court's disposition of this case is based upon the sound premise that we should not use our certiorari jurisdiction to express our views on a point in a case which we cannot dispose of because of inadequacies of the record which cannot realistically be remedied.
I should not ordinarily feel it necessary to file a comment in this vein. In the present situation, I am troubled lest my Brother WHITE'S dissent should give the impression that only he and my Brothers HARLAN and STEWART believe that the court below erred in relying on its inferences as to the undisclosed intent of the officers. I agree with the Court's disposition of this case, not because I disagree with the position stated in the dissent on this issue, but because oral argument and detailed consideration of the case after certiorari was granted disclosed the infirmity of the record which precludes the orderly disposition of the case by this Court.
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# Massachusetts v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
333 U.S. 611
Massachusetts v. United States
Argued: Dec. 10, 1947. --- Decided: April 19, 1948
Mr. Alfred E. Lo Presti, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Albert E. Hallett, of Chicago, Ill., for the State of Illinois, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Helen Goodner, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE 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
# Massachusetts v. Painten/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Fortas
* Dissenting Opinion White
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 560
Massachusetts v. Painten
Argued: Oct. 18, 1967. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1968
In 1958 respondent was tried and convicted in Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts, for armed robbery of a bank and related offenses. He appealed, and in 1961 his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, sub nom. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 342 Mass. 740, 175 N.E.2d 473.
Respondent eventually filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. Testimony was taken by the District Court on December 30, 1965. It ruled that respondent's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the entry into his apartment, by his arrest, and by the search and seizure of certain articles in his apartment which were introduced in evidence against him. Accordingly, it set aside his conviction and ordered his release. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the constitutional issues presented.
At the time of respondent's trial in 1958, Massachusetts did not have an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by an illegal search or seizure, Commonwealth v. Wilkins, 243 Mass. 356, 138 N.E. 11 (1923); Commonwealth v. Spofford, 343 Mass. 703, 706, 180 N.E.2d 673, 675 (1962), and the parties did not focus upon the issues now before us. The evidentiary hearing in 1965 took place almost eight years after the events.
After oral argument and study of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the record is not sufficiently clear and specific to permit decision of the important constitutional questions involved in this case. The writ is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U.S. 238, 83 S.Ct. 1265, 10 L.Ed.2d 321 (1963).
Dismissed.

## Notes

* ↑ 252 F.Supp. 851 (D.C.Mass.1966).
* ↑ 368 F.2d 142 (C.A.1st Cir. 1966).
* ↑ 386 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 955, 17 L.Ed.2d 805 (1967).
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
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pryor, Robert

​Pryor, Robert, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1837, chairman of Herts quarter sessions, high sheriff 1868, J.P., D.L., a student of Lincoln's Inn 8 April, 1834 (then aged 22), called to the bar 23 Nov., 1837 (2nd son of late Thomas Marlborough Pryor, Esq., of Hampstead, Middlesex); born 21 April, 1812; married 20 Aug., 1844, Elizabeth Caroline, dau. of late Wyrley Birch, Esq., of Wretham Hall, Norfolk, and has issue.
    High Elms, Watford; Athenæum and Oxford & Cambridge Clubs.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Puckle, George

​Puckle, George, M.D. St. Andrew 1856, late medical officer of health Lambeth, etc., a student of the Middle Temple 16 April, 1873, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1876 (eldest son of George Puckle, of De Crespigny Park, Surrey, gent.); born , .
    5, De Crespigny Park, Camberwell, S.E.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pugh, John Hunter

​Pugh, John Hunter, formerly a solicitor, a student of the Middle Temple 2 April, 1883, called to the bar 7 May, 1884 (only son of Rev. John Pugh, of Llansannan, co. Denbigh); born , .
    St. Stephen's Avenue, Shepherd's Bush.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pugh, Lewis Pugh

​Pugh, Lewis Pugh, M.P. Cardiganshire since 1880, M.A., Corpus Christi Coll., Oxon, 1863, from Winchester Coll., J.P., D.L. Cardiganshire, assumed surname of Pugh in lieu of Evans by royal licence 1868, practised before the High Court at Calcutta, a student of Lincoln's Inn 23 Jan., 1860 (then aged 22), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1862 (2nd son of John Evans, Esq., of Lovesgrove, co. Cardigan); born , 1837; married , 1864, Veronica Harriet, dau. of James Hills, Esq., then of Neechindepore, Bengal.
    Abermaed, Aberystwith; 2, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.; Oriental, Reform, and National Liberal Clubs.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pulling, Mr. Serjeant (Alexander)

​Pulling, Mr. Serjeant (Alexander), a member of Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, a revising barrister for Glamorgan 1857, went the North Wales circuit, sometime acting deputy judge of county courts and judge under Welsh Court Commission, senior member of Law Amendment Society and of jurisprudence department of National Association for Promoting Social Science, senior commissioner Metropolitan Management Act 1855, contested Boston 1866, author of The Order of the Coif, of A Treatise on the Laws, Customs and Franchises of the City of London, The Law of Mercantile Accounts, Law and Practice of Attorneys and Solicitors, a student of the Inner Temple 30 Oct., 1838 (then aged 24), called to the bar 9 June, 1843, serjeant-at-law 15 April, 1864 (son of late Capt. George Christopher Pulling, R.N., of St. Arvan's, co. Monmouth, dec.); born 1 Dec., 1813; married 30 Aug., 1855, Elizabeth, youngest dau. of late Luke Hopkinson, Esq., of London, and has issue.
    68, Redcliffe Gardens, S.W.; 3, Crown Office Row, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Proudfoot, John William

​Proudfoot, John William, a member of the Midland circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 13 April, 1874 (then aged 21), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1877 (elder son of John William Proudfoot, of London, solicitor); born 6 Sept., 1852; married 31 May, 1879, Matilda, youngest dau. of Frederick James Tomkins, D.C.L., of Lincoln's Inn, bar.-at-law.
    18, Penn Road Villas, N.; 4, Essex Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Provis, Samuel Butler

​Provis, Samuel Butler, M.A., Queen's Coll., Camb., 1872, B.A. London Univ. 1864 and a member of Convocation, an assistant secretary Local Government Board, formerly private secretary and junior legal assistant, a student of the Middle Temple 25 Sept., 1862, called to the bar 30 April, 1866 (eldest son of Samuel Provis, of Bath, gent.); born , .
    2, Lansdowne Place, Brunswick Square, W.C.; Local Government Board, Whitehall, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pugh, David

​Pugh, David, M.P. co. Carmarthen in three parliaments, 1859-68, high sheriff 1874, J.P., D.L., chairman of quarter sessions 1857-68, B.A., Balliol Coll., Oxon, 1828, from Rugby, a student of the Inner Temple 3 June, 1828, called to the bar 5 May, 1837 (son of David Heron Pugh, Esq., of Greenhill, co. Carmarthen, dec.); born , 1806.
    Manoravon, Llandilo, co. Carmarthen; Oxford and Cambridge Club.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pugh, Harry Rose

​Pugh, Harry Rose, M.A., Jesus Coll., Camb., 1882, a member of the Western circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 14 Jan., 1880 (then aged 20), called to the bar 6 June, 1883 (4th son of Charles Pugh, of Cleveland, Somerset); born , 1860.
    Stony Cliffe, Cleveland, Somerset.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Pulling, Alexander

​Pulling, Alexander, B.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1880, a student of the Inner Temple 11 June, 1877 (then aged 19), called to the bar 11 May, 1881 (eldest son of Mr. Serjeant Pulling); born 23 Sept., 1857.
    24, Old Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Terry, William Llewellyn

​Terry, William Llewellyn, a member of the South Wales and Chester circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 18 Nov., 1847 then aged 19), called to the bar 22 Nov., 1850 (only son of William Terry, of Swansea, surgeon); born , 1828.
    Swansea.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thackwell, Edward Joseph

​Thackwell, Edward Joseph, late 3rd light dragoons, a student of Gray's Inn 25 April, 1856, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1859 (eldest son of Lieut.-Genl. Sir Joseph Thackwell, G.C.B., K.H., of Agada Hall, co. Cork); born , ; married , 1852, Charlotte Price Lucas, stepdau. of Genl. Moosom Boyd.
    Norman's Land, Dymock, near Gloucester.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Theobald, Henry Studdy

​Theobald, Henry Studdy, M.A., fellow Wadham Coll., Oxon (from Rugby and Balliol) , 1st class classics, 2nd class mathematical moderations, 1st class final classical school, Taylorian scholar, public examiner in jurisprudence Oxon in 1884, formerly tutor in real property law to the Inner Temple, secretary to the committee on chancery business 1884, author of A Treatise on the Construction of Wills, joint author of Law of Railway Companies, a student of the Inner Temple 28 March, 1867 (then aged 19), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1873 (youngest son of late William Theobald, of Calcutta, and of the Inner Temple, bar.-at-law); born 7 June, 1848.
    29, Wynnstay Gardens, Kensington, W.; 10, Old Square, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Terrell, Arthur A'Beckett

​Terrell, Arthur A'Beckett, a student of Lincoln's Inn 24 Jan., 1870 (then aged 22), called to the bar 18 Nov., 1872 (elder son of Thomas Hull Terrell, late judge of county courts); born 29 Oct., 1847; married 16 April, 1878, Georgine Fredericka, younger dau. of late G. F. Koberwein, Esq., formerly of Vienna.
    38, Auriol Road, West Kensington, W.; 23, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Terrell, Thomas

​Terrell, Thomas, F.C.S., a member of the South Wales and Chester circuit, author of Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Inventions, a student of Gray's Inn 28 June, 1876, called to the bar 25 June, 1879 (son of Thomas Hull Terrell, late county court judge); born 11 July, 1852; married May, 1880, Emma Jane, dau. of Edward Oke Spooner, F.R.C.S.
    1, New Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Tewart, Edward Dawson Preston

​Tewart, Edward Dawson Preston, M.A., St. John's Coll., Oxon, 187-, a student of Lincoln's Inn 24 March, 1866 (then aged 24), called to the bar 15 May, 1878 (only son of Edward Tewart, of London, J.P.); born , 1842.
    26, Gibson Square, N.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thelwall, Edward

​Thelwall, Edward, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1864, a member of the Western circuit, a student of the Middle Temple 8 Nov., 1865, called to the bar 7 June, 1869 (4th son of late Rev. Algernon Sydney Thelwall); born , .
    13, John Street, Bristol.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Terrell, Henry

​Terrell, Henry, a member of the South Wales circuit, undergrad. St. John's Coll., Camb., a student of the Middle Temple 5 Nov., 1879, common law scholarship 1880, Inns of Court first prize common law 1880 and first prizes equity and real and personal property 188, called to the bar 21 June, 1882 (son of Thomas Hull Terrell, late a county court judge); born 9 May, 1856.
    9, New Square. Lincoln's Inn. W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Terrell, Thomas Hull

​Terrell, Thomas Hull, county court judge Llandilo 1866-78, a student of the Inner Temple 29 June, 1830 (then aged 21), called to the bar 12 June, 1835 (4th son of John Terrell, of Exeter, solicitor); born 23 Jan., 1809; married 4 April, 1843, Margaret Louisa Jane, youngest dau. of William A'Beckett, of London, solicitor; she died 28 Dec., 1871, leaving, with 2 daus., 2 sons, viz., Arthur, above-named, and Gilbert Howard Terrell, of London, solicitor.
    Washington, U.S.A.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Terry, Frank

​Terry, Frank, M.A., St. John's Coll., Camb., 1884, B.A., LL.B. 1881, a student of the Middle Temple 26 Jan., 1881, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1884 (3rd son of Edward Truelove Terry, of Dudley, co. Worc.); born , .
    Dudley, co. Worcester.
# McClanahan v. Morauer & Hartzell, Inc./Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 16
McClanahan v. Morauer & Hartzell, Inc.
Argued: Oct. 21, 1971. --- Decided: Nov 8, 1971
Under § 33(g) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, an employer is not obligated to pay compensation to an employee who, without the employer's written approval, settles a claim against a third person for an amount less than the compensation to which the employee is entitled under the Act. 44 Stat. 1441, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 933(g). Certiorari was granted in this case, 402 U.S. 1008, 91 S.Ct. 2196, 29 L.Ed.2d 430 (1971), on the assumption that it presented the question whether the consent judgment entered by the District Judge awarding petitioner damages against a third person evidenced a 'compromise' subject to § 33(g), or an award of damages 'determined * * * by the independent evaluation of a trial judge,' not subject to § 33(g) under Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Assn., 390 U.S. 459, 467, 88 S.Ct. 1140, 1145, 20 L.Ed.2d 30 (1968). Fuller examination of the case on oral argument discloses that the record does not adequately present that question. The writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted.
Writ dismissed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, 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
# McClane v. Boon/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 244
McClane v. Boon
We think the counsel for the plaintiff in error has mistaken the proper practice under the peculiar circumstances of the case. Application should have been made to the court below for the purpose of reviving the suit in the name of the widow and heirs of the deceased; and then a writ of error could have regularly issued.
If the court should refuse, then it would become necessary to issue it in the name of these representatives, in the usual way, serving on them the citation to appear at the next term.
The case of Kellogg et al. v. Forsyth, is an authority for issuing the writ in the name of the widow and heirs, and, also, for the appearance of these parties on the citation, and make objections to these proceedings if they see fit.
As the case now stands, the parties to the suit described in the writ, and in whose names it was issued, are McClane, plaintiff in error, and Boon, defendant, deceased, and the citation is issued and served on parties, not parties to the record, which, of itself, is error.
WRIT OF ERROR DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ 24 Howard, 186.
* ↑ Davenport v. Fletcher, 16 Id. 142.
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
# McClellan v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 280
McClellan v. California
Arnold McClellan, pro se.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., of California, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District.
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
# McClellan v. Carland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 268
McClellan v. Carland
Argued: January 25, 26, 1910. --- Decided: April 11, 1910
Messrs. Melvin Grigsby and Grigsby & Grigsby for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 269-271 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, S. W. Clark, and U.S. G. Cherry for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 271-274 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
# McClellan v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 130
McClellan v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## 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
# McClane v. Boon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 244
McClane v. Boon
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.
On motion. Boon filed a bill in a State court of Oregon against McClane, to enjoin him from prosecuting an action at law to recover the possession of a lot of land, for which a patent had been issued to McClane by the United States, and praying that the same might be held by McClane as trustee for the benefit of him, Boon. The court dismissed the bill. On an appeal to the Supreme Court, that court reversed the decree, and rendered one for the plaintiff. McClane, the defendant, sued out a writ of error from this court to the Supreme Court of Oregon, returnable December Term, 1863, which was dismissed at the December Term, 1866.
A second writ of error was issued July 29th, 1867, returnable at the next term of the Supreme Court of the United States. On the 15th June, 1864, pending the first writ of error, Boon, the defendant in error, died.
Mr. Lander now made a motion, having for its object to revive the writ of error, by suggesting the death of Boon, and substituting the widow and heirs-at-law as parties to the record.
The parties described in the present writ of error, it will be observed, were the parties to the original suit, and the writ, therefore, was issued in the name of a dead man.
Mr. Lander, in support of his motion, argued, that being a chancery suit, the death of the plaintiff had not abated but only suspended it; that the writ of error was a continuation of the original litigation; that this being so, the plaintiff in error had made the suggestion in the only court open to him.
Mr. Williams, contra: That the motion was against proper practice; that the remedy, if any, was in the court below.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

* ↑ Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Peters, 168.
* ↑ Nations v. Johnson, 24 Howard, 195, 204.
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
# McClellan v. California/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 280
McClellan v. California
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824.
Mr. Justice STEWART would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S., at 42, 87 S.Ct., at 837.

## 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
# McClellan v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 130
McClellan v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company
Richard M. Markus, for appellant.
John G. Cardinal and Edwin Knachel, 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