OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Guild v. Frontin/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 135
Guild v. Frontin
The record and proceedings in this case are in conformity with the practice of the state courts of California. It was tried without the intervention of a jury, and the testimony, together with the opinion of the court, filed of record. But there is no special verdict, or agreed statement of facts, on which the judgment was rendered; nor is there any bill of exceptions, sealed by the court, to their decision on any question of law. We are, in fact, called upon to review the case on the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, as if it were a bill in chancery. Our very frequent decisions on this subject seem not to have come to the knowledge of the bar in the court below. Parties may, by consent, waive the trial of issues of fact by a jury, and submit the trial of both facts and law to the court. It will not be a mistrial. But if they wish the judgment of the court to be reviewed on a writ of error, a special verdict or agreed statement of facts must be put on record. The issues of fact must be ascertained, and made certain, before a court of error can review the decision of an inferior court. If the verdict do not find all the issues, or the agreed statement in the nature of a special verdict be imperfect or incomplete, this court may order a venire de novo, because of the mistrial, as in the case of Graham v. Bayne, ante, p. 60, at this term. But having jurisdiction of the cause, and no error appearing on the face of the record, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
The case of Prentice v. Zane, 8 How. 470, is directly in point on this subject.

## 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
# Guilty Plea in Virginia Terror Case

Guilty Plea in Virginia Terror Case. October 21, 2010. Federal Bureau of Investigation. United States Department of Justice. Virginia.
Guilty Plea in Virginia Terror Case
United States Department of Justice
Virginia Guilty Plea in Virginia Terror Case
October 21, 2010
Guilty Plea in Virginia Terror Case
Zachary Adam Chesser, 20, of Virginia, pleaded guilty charges that included communicating threats against the writers of the South Park television show, soliciting violent jihadists, and attempting to provide material support to Al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Chesser admitted that in May he posted to a jihadist website the personal contact information of individuals who had joined the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” group on Facebook. He also admitted that he twice attempted to travel to Somalia to join Al-Shabaab and engage in violent jihad as a foreign fighter.
Read more
Oct 21, 2010 02:35 AM
____________________
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
# Guidet v. Brooklyn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 550
Guidet v. Brooklyn
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
This is a bill in equity, filed Jan. 29, 1874, by Charles Guidet, against the city of Brooklyn, wherein he alleges that the defendant was then making and using a stone pavement which, in whole or in part, was substantially the same in construction and operation as that for which reissued letters-patent No. 4106, bearing date Aug. 23, 1870, were granted to him. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction and account.
The answer of the city denies the alleged infringement of the letters, and sets up that the pavement, which is their subjectmatter, was, with Guidet's knowledge and consent, in public use for more than two years before the date of his original application, and that he was not the original and first inventor of it, the same having before that date been described in various publications, and publicly used in certain specified localities of a number of cities in the United States.
Upon final hearing the court dismissed the bill, and Guidet appealed here. The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George Harding for the appellant.
Mr. William C. De Witt and Mr. George Gifford for the appellee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Guild v. Frontin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 135
Guild v. Frontin
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California.
The point of practice involved in it, is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Blair, for the plaintiffs in error, and submitted on a printed brief by Mr. Cutting, for the defendant.
Mr. Justice GRIER 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
# Hartford Accident Indemnity Company v. N. O. Nelson Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 352
Hartford Accident Indemnity Company v. N. O. Nelson Manufacturing Company
Argued: Jan. 12, 1934. --- Decided: Feb 5, 1934
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Messrs. L. Barrett Jones and W. Calvin Wells, both of Jackson, Miss., for appellants.
Mr. Gerard H. Brandon, of Natchez, Miss., for appellee.
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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
# Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
175 U.S. 91
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
Argued: November 11, 12, 1897. --- Decided: November 6, 1899
Messrs. Charles A. Clark and Richard W. Barger for petitioners.
Messrs. Charles B. Keeler and George R. Peck for respondent.
Mr. Justice Gray 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
# Hartford Accident Indemnity Company v. Illinois

United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 155
Hartford Accident Indemnity Company v. Illinois
Argued: March 31, 1936. --- Decided: April 27, 1936
mS.CT685mMr. J. F. Dammann, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
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
# Hamlet (1917) Yale/Appendix D

Layout 2
APPENDIX D
Suggestions for Collateral Reading
William Hazlitt in Characters of Shakespeare's Plays (1817). (Reprinted in Everyman's Library.)
S. T. Coleridge in Lectures on Shakespeare, etc., 2 vols. (1849). (Reprinted in Everyman's Library.)
Helena Faucit in Shakespeare's Female Characters, Ophelia, pp. 1–21 (1885. 7th ed. 1914.).
Mrs. Jameson in Characteristics of Women, Ophelia, pp. 187–207. (New ed. Riverside Press, n. d.)
John Corbin, The Elizabethan Hamlet (1895).
A. C. Bradley in Shakespearean Tragedy (1904). (Hamlet, Lectures III and IV.)
Sidney Lee in Shakespeare and the Modern Stage (1906).
Charlton M. Lewis, The Genesis of Hamlet (1907).
Karl Werder, The Heart of Hamlet's Mystery, Eng. transl. (1907).
Thomas Kyd, The Spanish Tragedy, ed. by J. Schick (1907). (Temple Dramatists.)
William Winter in Shakespeare on the Stage (1911), chap. v, Hamlet.
W. F. Trench, Shakespeare's Hamlet (1913).
Stopford A. Brooke in Ten More Plays of Shakespeare, chap. iv, Hamlet (1913).
H. H. Furness, Variorum Hamlet, 2 vols. (1877).
# Hamlet (1917) Yale/Text

Notes originally placed at the bottom of each page appear below, following the Dramatis Personæ.
Where these notes refer to an end note (cf. n. = confer notam; "consult note"), a link to the accompanying end note is provided from the Footnotes section. The end notes begin on page 155 of the original volume.
Layout 2
Hamlet—Prince of Denmark
* Act I
* Act II
* Act III
* Act IV
* Act V
[DRAMATIS PERSONÆ
Claudius, King of Denmark
Hamlet, Son to the late, and Nephew to the present King
Fortinbras, Prince of Norway
Horatio, Friend to Hamlet
Polonius, Lord Chamberlain
Laertes, his Son
| Voltimand, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Courtiers |
| Cornelius, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Courtiers |
| Rosencrantz, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Courtiers |
| Guildenstern, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Courtiers |
| Osric, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Courtiers |
| A Gentleman, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Courtiers |
A Priest
| Marcellus, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Officers |
| Bernardo, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Officers |
Francisco, a Soldier
Reynaldo, Servant to Polonius
A Captain
English Ambassadors
Players. Two Clowns, Grave-diggers
Gertrude, Queen of Denmark and Mother to Hamlet
Ophelia, Daughter to Polonius
Ghost of Hamlet's Father
Scene: Denmark.]
Footnotes
​Dramatis Personæ; cf. n.
# Hamlet (1917) Yale/Appendix B

Layout 2
APPENDIX B
History of the Play
The stage history of Hamlet is practically that of the English-speaking stage itself. Almost all the great actors of England and America, from Shakespeare's day to this, have appeared as the Prince. In addition, for the past one hundred years, it has been frequently played in the principal European countries. It is safe to say that no other play of Shakespeare's has been more often performed.
Richard Burbage, the leading actor of Shakespeare's company, was undoubtedly the first Hamlet. From the meagre accounts of his style of acting which have survived, we may infer that, like subsequent great interpreters of the part, he was distinguished for the ease and naturalness of his art.
After the Restoration, Thomas Betterton achieved great fame in this rôle. He was instructed in his interpretation by Sir William Davenant, who had seen the Blackfriars' company act the play. Betterton for the first time introduced scenery into Hamlet, and, if we are to trust the Quarto of 1676, established many of the traditions subsequently followed in acting versions.
David Garrick was the leading interpreter of Hamlet during the middle portion of the eighteenth century. He first appeared in the part on November 16, 1734, and continued to play it many times until he left the stage in 1776. Garrick introduced alterations of his own into the text, the chief of which was the omission of the churchyard scene (V. i.), but he was not followed by others in this. The latter years of the eighteenth century saw what many to ​this day consider must have been the greatest Hamlet of them all, John Philip Kemble, with his sister, Mrs. Siddons, as Ophelia. Kemble restored the text as written by Shakespeare and abolished the Garrick innovations.
The nineteenth century has witnessed, in England and America, a number of excellent Hamlets, of whom the best remembered are Edmund Kean, Macready, Samuel Phelps, Fechter, Edwin Booth, Sir Henry Irving, Wilson Barrett, Sir Herbert Tree, Martin Harvey, Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson, and E. H. Sothern. In addition to the list of famous Hamlets, many of the leading actresses have, at one time or another, played Gertrude or Ophelia.
The most artistic and remarkable of the modern productions of Hamlet was that designed a few years ago by Gordon Craig for the Art Theatre in Moscow. Nor is there any indication that the popularity of this play upon the stage has dimmed. It still remains the test of the summit of achievement for the art of a tragic actor.
# Harris v. Nelson/Dissent Stewart

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Black Stewart
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 286
Harris v. Nelson
Argued: Dec. 9, 1968. --- Decided: March 24, 1969
Mr. Justice STEWART, dissenting.
I concur with most of what is said in the Court's opinion, but cannot concur in its judgment.
I wholly agree that Rule 33 is inapplicable to habeas corpus proceedings. Contrary to my Brother HARLAN, I further agree that federal judges in carrying out their duty to dispose of habeas corpus applications 'as law and justice require,' 28 U.S.C. § 2243, should not be inhibited by inflexibly formalized procedural rules. In getting at the facts in such cases, the district courts should be given wide leeway for 'discretion to exercise their common sense.' Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 514, 7 L.Ed.2d 473.
However, for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion today in Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 227, which I have joined, I would affirm the judgment in the present 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
# Harris v. New York
## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 222
Harris v. New York
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York
No. 206. Argued: December 17, 1970 --- Decided: February 24, 1971
Statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution's case in chief because of lack of the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, may, if its trustworthiness satisfies legal standards, be used for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of defendant's trial testimony. See Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62. Pp. 223-226.
25 N.Y. 2d 175, 250 N.E. 2d 349, affirmed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HARLAN, STEWART, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BLACK, J., dissented. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 226.
Joel Martin Aurnou argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
James J. Duggan argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Carl A. Vergari.
Sybil H. Landau argued the cause for the District Attorney of New York County as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Frank S. Hogan, pro se, and Michael R. Juviler.

## 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
# Harris v. Robinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
45 U.S. 336
Harris v. Robinson
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama.
It was action brought by the indorsee (Robinson) against an indorser (Harris) of a promissory note.
Robinson, the plaintiff below, was a citizen of the State of Tennessee, and Harris a citizen of Alabama.
The note was as follows.
'$1,600 0/00. Eight months after date, we promise to pay Matth. Burks, or order, sixteen hundred dollars; payable and negotiable at the Planters' Bank of the State of Tennessee, at Nashville, for value received. Dated in Lincoln county, Tennessee, 20th November, 1837.
(Signed,) JOHN P. BURKS & Co.'
(Indorsed,) 'Matth. Burks, Benj'n D. Harris, J. Robinson.'

## 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
# Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 15
Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Argued: Oct. 19, 1959. ---
Mr. Marshall I. Nurenberg, for petitioner.
Mr. Edwin Knachel, 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
# Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 15
Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Argued: Oct. 19, 1959. ---
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury's conclusion, embodied in answers to Interrogatories to Jury numbers I and II, that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner's injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493. See also Moore v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 358 U.S. 31, 79 S.Ct. 2, 3 L.Ed.2d 25, and cases cited therein. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the petitioner's challenge to the Ohio procedure governing interrogatories to the jury.
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524, 77 S.Ct. 443, 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Mr. Justice STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
(For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice HARLAN, joined by Mr. Justice WHITTAKER, see 80 S.Ct. 29.)

## 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
# H.R. 3200/Division C/Title II/Subtitle D/Part 4
## PART 4 — Health Workforce Assessment
### Sec. 2271. Health Workforce Assessment.

    (a) In General.—
       Section 761 (42 U.S.C. 294n) is amended—
          (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
          (2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following:
             “(a) In general.—The Secretary shall, based upon the classifications and standardized methodologies and procedures developed by the Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment under section 764(b)—
                “(1) collect data on the health workforce (as defined in section 764(i)), disaggregated by field, discipline, and specialty, with respect to—
                   “(A) the supply (including retention) of health professionals relative to the demand for such professionals;
                   “(B) the diversity of health professionals (including with respect to race, ethnic background, and gender); and
                   “(C) the geographic distribution of health professionals; and
                “(2) collect such data on individuals participating in the programs authorized by subtitles A, B, and C and part 1 of subtitle D of title II of division C of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
             “(b) Grants and contracts for health workforce analysis.—
                “(1) In general.—The Secretary may award grants or contracts to eligible entities to carry out subsection (a).
                “(2) Eligibility.—To be eligible for a grant or contract under this subsection, an entity shall be—
                   “(A) an accredited health professions school or program;
                   “(B) an academic health center;
                   “(C) a State, local, or tribal government;
                   “(D) a public or private entity; or
                   “(E) a consortium of 2 or more entities described in subparagraphs (A) through (D).
             “(c) Collaboration and data sharing.—The Secretary shall collaborate with Federal departments and agencies, health professions organizations (including health professions education organizations), and professional medical societies for the purpose of carrying out subsection (a).
             “(d) Report.—The Secretary shall submit to the Congress an annual report on the data collected under subsection (a).”.
    (b) Period Before Completion of National Strategy.—
       Pending completion of the classifications and standardized methodologies and procedures developed by the Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment under section 764(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 2261, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and in consultation with such Advisory Committee, may make a judgment about the classifications, methodologies, and procedures to be used for collection of data under section 761(a) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by this section.