OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Hubsch v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 440
Hubsch v. United States
We granted writs of certiorari in these cases, 338 U.S. 814, 70 S.Ct. 44, to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 174 F.2d 7, affirming judgments of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida in favor of the United States on claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Before argument, petitioners and the Solicitor General submitted a joint application for approval of proposed settlements of the claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2677, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2677, which reads as follows:
'The Attorney General, with the approval of the court, may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title (suits under the Tort Claims Act), after commencement of an action thereon.' We construe § 2677 as imposing on the District Court the authority and responsibility for passing on proposed compromises, notwithstanding the judgments of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgments of the District Court heretofore entered herein. The application and stipulations are therefore referred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with authority to consider and dispose of the same. It is so ordered.
Remanded.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Company

United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 496
Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Company
Argued: Feb. 13, 1935. --- Decided: March 2, 1936
The Attorney General and Mr. Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. George M. Naus, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 551
Helvering v. Schweitzer
The Attorney General, for petitioner.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
For opinion below, see Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Stokes, 79 F.(2d) 256.
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
# Helvering v. Schweitzer/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 551
Helvering v. Schweitzer
The petition for writ of certiorari in this case is granted. Decree reversed. Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 59, 80 L.Ed. 3, decided November 11, 1935; Helvering v. Schweitzer, 296 U.S. 551, 56 S.Ct. 304, 80 L.Ed. 389, decided this day; Helvering v. Blumenthal, 296 U.S. 552, 56 S.Ct. 305, 80 L.Ed. 390, decided this 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
# Helvering v. Sprouse

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 604
Helvering v. Sprouse
Argued: Nov. 10-12, 1942. --- Decided: April 5, 1943
Mr. Leo Brady, of New York City, for Emil H. Strassburger.
Mr. Arnold Raum, of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Mr. Charles E. McCulloch, of Portland, Or., for R. A. Sprouse.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
315 U.S. 194
Helvering v. Southwest Consol Corporation
Argued: Jan. 14, 15, 1942. --- Decided: Feb 2, 1942
See 315 U.S. 829, 62 S.Ct. 802, 86 L.Ed. --.
Second Petition for Rehearing Denied May 11, 1942.
See 316 U.S. 710, 62 S.Ct. 1266, 86 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Samuel O. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. A. Chauncey Newlin, of New York City, 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
# Helvering v. St. Louis Union Trust Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 39
Helvering v. St. Louis Union Trust Company
Argued: Oct. 24, 25, 1935. --- Decided: Nov 11, 1935
The Attorney General and Mr. David E. Hudson, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Daniel N. Kirby, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.
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
# History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science

* History of the Conflict between Religion and Science as Vol. XII of The International Scientific Series
** History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1877) (start transcription)
** History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1880) (start transcription)
** History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1882) (start transcription)
** History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1890) (start transcription)
* History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1898)
# History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1898)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
Seminal text of the conflict thesis.

## CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE.
CHAPTER II.
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.—ITS TRANSFORMATION ON ATTAINING IMPERIAL POWER.—ITS RELATIONS TO SCIENCE.
CHAPTER III.
CONFLICT RESPECTING THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITY OF GOD.—THE FIRST OR SOUTHERN REFORMATION.
CHAPTER IV.
THE RESTORATION OF SCIENCE IN THE SOUTH.
CHAPTER V.
CONFLICT RESPECTING THE NATURE OF THE SOUL.—DOCTRINE OF EMANATION AND ABSORPTION.
CHAPTER VI.
CONFLICT RESPECTING THE NATURE OF THE WORLD.
CHAPTER VII.
CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE AGE OF THE EARTH.
CHAPTER VIII.
CONFLICT RESPECTING THE CRITERION OF TRUTH.
CHAPTER IX.
CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE.
CHAPTER X.
LATIN CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO MODERN CIVILIZATION.
CHAPTER XI.
SCIENCE IN RELATION TO MODERN CIVILIZATION.
CHAPTER XII.
THE IMPENDING CRISIS.
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
# Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Certiorari granted

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Certiorari granted. March 30, 1987. No. 86-1278. Supreme Court of the United States.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Certiorari granted
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
March 30, 1987
HUSTLER MAGAZINE AND LARRY C. FLYNT, Petitioners v. FALWELL, JERRY
No. 86-1278
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
480 U.S. 945; 107 S. Ct. 1601; 94 L. Ed. 2d 788; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1410; 55 U.S.L.W. 3661
March 30, 1987
PRIOR HISTORY: C.A. 4th Cir.
Reported below: 797 F. 2d 1270.
OPINION
Motions of Richmond Newspapers, Inc.,et al. and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.
____________________
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
# Hustler Magazine v. Falwell/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion White
Justice White, concurring in the judgment.
As I see it, the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), has little to do with this case, for here the jury found that the ad contained no assertion of fact. But I agree with the Court that the judgment below, which penalized the publication of the parody, cannot be squared with the First Amendment.
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
# Husty v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
282 U.S. 694
Husty v. United States
Argued: Jan. 22, 1931. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1931
[Syllabus from pages 694-696 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Percy F. Parrott, H. A. Kesler, and John B. McMahon, all of Toledo, Ohio, for petitioners.
The Attorney General and Mr. Amos W. W. Woodcock, of Baltimore, Md., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 697-698 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice STONE 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
# In re Keasbey & Mattison Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
160 U.S. 221
In re Keasbey & Mattison Company
This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, to command them to take jurisdiction and proceed against the E. L. Patch Company upon a bill in equity, filed in that court on January 26, 1895, by the petitioner, described in the bill as a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, against the E. L. Patch Company, alleged in the bill to be a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Massachusetts, and having its principal office and place of business in the city and state of New York, and against Henry E. C. Kuehne and Edward H. Lubbers, alleged to be citizens of the United States and of the state of New York, and managing or general agents of the E. L. Patch Company in that state, for infringement of a trade-mark, owned by the petitioner, registered in the patent office under the laws of the United States, and used in commerce between the United States and several foreign nations, named in the bill; and alleging that 'this is a suit of a civil nature in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the laws of the United States, and also in which there is a controversy between citizens of different states, within the intent and meaning of the statute in such case made and provided.'
Upon the filing of the bill in equity, a subpoena addressed to all the defendants was issued, and was served in the city of New York upon the E. L. Patch Company by exhibiting the original and delivering a copy to Kuehne, one of its managing agents in the district, and was also served upon Kuehne and Lubbers individually.
Upon the return of the subpoena, the E. L. Patch Company, by its solicitor, appearing specially for this purpose, moved to set aside the alleged service of the subpoena upon the company; and the circuit court, upon a hearing, ordered that the motion be granted, and that service set aside as null and void, and the company relieved from appearing to plead or answer to the bill.
Edward K. Jones, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 222-225 intentionally omitted]
Wm. A. Abbott, for respondent.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, 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
# In re Indiana Transportation Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 281
In re Indiana Transportation Company
Argued: December 4, 1916. --- Decided: December 18, 1916
Mr. Harry W. Standidge for the petition.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Chief Justice White, by direction 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
# In re Kemmler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
136 U.S. 436
In re Kemmler
[Statement of Case from pages 437-438 intentionally omitted]
Roger Sherman, for petitioner.
Chas. F. Tabor, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
FULLER, C. J.
This is an application for a writ of error to bring up for review a judgment of the supreme court of the state of New York, affirming an order of the county judge of Cayuga county, remanding the relator to the custody of the warden of the state-prison at Auburn, upon a hearing upon habeas corpus. The judgment of the supreme court was entered upon a judgment of the court of appeals of the state of New York, affirming a reprevious order of the supreme court. The application was originally presented to Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD, and, upon his suggestion, was permitted to be made in open court, and has been heard upon full argument.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 286
In re Isserman
Argued: April 6, 1953. ---
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON announced the order of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice REED, Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice MINTON join.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 281
In re Indiana Transportation Company
Argued: December 4, 1916. --- Decided: December 18, 1916
Speaking in a general sense, on the ground that in an admiralty cause pending in the district court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, one of the judges of that court had, by an order which he was absolutely devoid of jurisdiction to make, permitted more than 270 persons to become colibellants, an application by the defendant in the cause was made on the 16th day of October, 1916, for leave to file a petition for prohibition directed to the judge in question, to prevent the carrying out of the order. On the 23d of October permission to file the petition for prohibition was granted and a rule to show cause was directed to be issued to the Honorable Kenesaw M. Landis, the judge by whom the order complained of was made. On the day upon which this rule was returnable, December 4, there was no response to the rule made on behalf of the respondent judge, but by oral motion a request was made on behalf of the parties who, it was asserted, had been mistakenly permitted to become colibellants, that they be treated as the respondents to the rule, and be permitted in that capacity to file a return to the rule, a copy of which return was prepared to be filed and presented for filing in case the permission asked was granted, and that request is the matter now before us for consideration.
We are of opinion, however, that the substitution of respondents asked for cannot be granted, since it is apparent that the judge who rendered the order and against whom the writ prayed for, if allowed, is to be directed, is the essential party respondent, however much, when his return to the rule is made, either by his authority, or because of their interest in the result, or as friends of the court, the persons to be adversely affected by the granting of the relief prayed may be heard to sustain the sufficiency of the return when that subject arises for consideration. We therefore transfer the date fixed for the return in the original rule to show cause from the 4th day of December, 1916, to the 15th day of January, 1917, in order to afford ample opportunity for the making by the respondent judge of the return which the original order calls for.
And it is 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
# In re Key

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
189 U.S. 84
In re Key
Argued: April 6, 1903. --- Decided: April 27, 1903
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, Henry P. Blair, and John Spalding Flannery for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Prentiss for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller 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
# Hull v. Dicks

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
235 U.S. 584
Hull v. Dicks
Argued: November 12, 1914. --- Decided: January 5, 1915
Mr. William H. Barrett for James M. Hull, Jr., trustee.
Messrs. B. B. McCowen and Thomas W. Hardwick for Mrs. M. J. Dicks.
Mr. Justice Lamar 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
# Hull v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 893
Hull v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 70-5531
The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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
# Hull v. Philadelphia & Railroad Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 475
Hull v. Philadelphia & Railroad Railway Company
Argued: Jan. 16, 1920. --- Decided: April 19, 1920
Messrs. Charles D. Wagaman and Harvey R. Spessard, both of Hagerstown, Md., for petitioner.
Mr. Henry H. Keedy, Jr., of Hagerstown, Md., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 476 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
# Hull v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 312
Hull v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company
Argued: Nov. 19, 1917. --- Decided: Dec 10, 1917
Mr. Walter S. Heilburn, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Henry B. Twombly, of New York City, for defendant in error Palmer.
Mr. Frederick Geller, of New York City, for defendant in error Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# I never saw a Moor—

* "I never saw a moor" in Poems (1890)
* "I never saw a moor" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# I never told the buried gold
### Version 1

I never told the buried gold Opon the hill that lies - I saw the sun, his plunder done - Crouch low to guard his prize -
He stood as near As stood you hear - A pace had been between - Did but a snake bisect the brake My life had forfeit been.
That was a wondrous booty. I hope 'twas honest gained - Those were the fairest ingots That ever kissed the spade.
Whether to keep the secret - Whether to reveal - Whether while I ponder Kidd may sudden sail -
Could a shrewd advise me We might e'en divide - Should a shrewd betray me - "Atropos" decide -

### Version 2

I never told the buried gold Opon the hill - that lies - I saw the sun - his plunder done Crouch low to guard his prize.
He stood as near As stood you hear - A pace had been between - Did but a snake bisect the brake My life had forfeit been.
That was a wondrous booty - I hope 'twas honest gained. Those were the fairest ingots That ever kissed the spade!
Whether to keep the secret - Whether to reveal - Whether as I ponder "Kidd" will sudden sail -
Could a shrewd advise me We might e'en divide - Should a shrewd betray me - Atropos decide!

### Version 3

I never told the buried gold Upon the hill — that lies — I saw the sun — his plunder done Crouch low to guard his prize.
He stood as near As stood you here — A pace had been between — Did but a snake bisect the brake My life had forfeit been.
That was a wondrous booty — I hope 'twas honest gained. Those were the fairest ingots That ever kissed the spade!
Whether to keep the secret — Whether to reveal — Whether as I ponder Kidd will sudden sail —
Could a shrewd advise me We might e'en divide — Should a shrewd betray me — Atropos decide!
# I noticed People disappeared

* "I noticed people disappeared" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* "I noticed people disappeared" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# I reason, Earth is short—

* "I reason, earth is short" in Poems (1890)
* "I reason, earth is short" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# I saw One hanging on a tree

Looking at the cross by John Newton
    I saw One hanging on a tree,
    In agony and blood,
    Who fixed His languid eyes on me,
    As near His cross I stood.
    Refrain
    O, can it be, upon a tree,
    The Savior died for me?
    My soul is thrilled, my heart is filled,
    To think He died for me!
    Sure, never to my latest breath,
    Can I forget that look;
    It seemed to charge me with His death,
    Though not a word He spoke.
    Refrain
    My conscience felt and owned the guilt,
    And plunged me in despair,
    I saw my sins His blood had spilt,
    And helped to nail Him there.
    Refrain
    A second look He gave, which said,
    “I freely all forgive;
    This blood is for thy ransom paid;
    I die that thou mayst live.”
    Refrain
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