OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Jenkins v. McKeithen

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Douglas
    Black

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 411
Roderick JENKINS, Appellant, v. John Julien McKEITHEN, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, et al.
No. 548. Argued: March 25, 1969. --- Decided: June 9, 1969. — Rehearing Denied: October 13, 1969.
See 90 S.Ct. 35.
[Syllabus from pages 411-413 intentionally omitted]
J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, La., for appellant.
Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN and Mr. Justice BRENNAN join.

## Notes

    Rehearing Denied: October 13, 1969. See 90 S.Ct. 35.
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
# Jenkins v. McKeithen/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Douglas Black
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
395 U.S. 411
Roderick JENKINS, Appellant, v. John Julien McKEITHEN, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, et al.
No. 548. Argued: March 25, 1969. --- Decided: June 9, 1969. — Rehearing Denied: October 13, 1969.
Mr. Justice BLACK, concurring.
In concur in the Court's judgment and in much of what is said in the prevailing opinion. I cannot agree, however, to reaffirming Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307. I joined the dissent of Mr. Justice DOUGLAS in the Hannah case and still adhere to that dissent. The Louisiana law here, like the federal law considered in the Hannah case, is, in my judgment, nothing more nor less than a scheme for a nonjudicial tribunal to charge, try, convict, and punish people without courts, without juries, without lawyers, without witnesses-in short, without any of the procedural protections that the Bill of Rights provides. The Louisiana law is reminiscent of the old Parliamentary and Ecclesiastical Commission trials which took away the liberty of John Lilburne and his contemporaries without due process of law-that is, without giving them the benefit of a trial in accordance with the law of the land. For these reasons I believe that the Louisiana law denies due process of law.

## 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
# Jenkins v. Neff

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
186 U.S. 230
JOHN G. JENKINS and One Hundred and Forty Other Stockholders of the First National Bank of Brooklyn, Plffs. in Err.,
No. 198.
Argued March 20, 1902.
Decided June 2, 1902.
This case is before us on a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of New York, and is brought to review a final order of that court affirming an assessment of the shares of stock in the First National Bank of Brooklyn. Under the practice prevailing in that state a writ of certiorari was issued out of the supreme court on August 13, 1897, on the petition of the stockholders of the First National Bank of the city of Brooklyn, now plaintiffs in error, directed to the board of assessors of the city of Brooklyn, requiring them to return all their proceedings relative to the assessment of the shares of stock of said bank. A return having been made the assessment was on October 6, 1899, confirmed, with some modifications not material to the present controversy. This order was affirmed by the appellate division of that court on January 9, 1900. 47 App. Div. 394, 62 N. Y. Supp. 321. On appeal to the court of appeals the order was by that court also affirmed (163 N. Y. 320, 57 N. E. 408), and the record remitted to the supreme court.
Messrs. Seymour D. Thompson and Frank Harvey Field for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. James McKeen and George L. Rives for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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
# Jenkins v. Maryland/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 834
David JENKINS v. MARYLAND.
Upon consideration of the entire record and the consent of the Attorney General of Maryland, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The motion to remand is also granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of its decisions in Schowgurow v. State of Maryland, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475, and Smith v. State of Maryland, 240 Md. 464, 214 A.2d 563. This disposition of the case is without prejudice to any other questions presented by the petition for a writ of certiorari.

## 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
# Jenkins v. National Surety Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 258
Jenkins v. National Surety Company
Argued: April 11, 12, 1928. --- Decided: May 14, 1928
Messrs. Paul H. Ray, John Jensen, E. M. Bagley, and Harold M. Stephens, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from page 259 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Bynum E. Hinton, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 260-262 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 Desert and Wilderness

IN DESERT
AND WILDERNESS
BY
HENRYK SIENKIEWICZ
Author of "With Fire and Sword," "Quo Vadis,"
"Whirlpools," etc.
TRANSLATED FROM THE POLISH BY
MAX A. DREZMAL
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1917
Copyright, 1912,
By Little, Brown, and Company.
All rights reserved
Printers
S. J. Parkhill & Co., Boston, U.S.A.
PART FIRST
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
PART SECOND
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Conclusion
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 1947, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 76 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
# Invincible Minnie/Book 4

p. 233. Note that chapter numbers are independent of the "Books."
THE DESTRUCTION OF LIONEL
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
# Invincible Minnie/Book 4/Chapter 25

p. 235.
One might imagine a sort of allegorical picture of Minnie’s progress. There would be Minnie, in her triumphal chariot, dressed in modern garments for the reason that her rather short and matronly form would in no wise be suited by any classic costume; she would be standing upright, her expression anxious but resolute, driving with careful skill the twin steeds which had carried her so well—Sex and Wilfulness, the latter with a single eye. Before her walk slowly the victims dedicated to sacrifice on her altar, Sandra and little Robert. Their poor little faces bear the shadow of their destiny. Behind her walk Frances, erect as ever, but incurably wounded—the woman robbed of her one love,—and Mr. Petersen, the honest man despoiled of his good repute. And tied to the car itself, dragged stumbling in her wake, stripped to the scornful gaze of the populace, ruined, broken, is Lionel, fastidious ruler of a tiny kingdom forever lost to him, shorn of all his pride and prestige, most pitiable of all her victims.
And she never glances back; her gaze is steadfastly forward, toward the future, where her children will surely suffer and die. She never looks to one side or the other, sees nothing of what she passes, neither the black valleys where lie bleaching bones, or the windy hill tops, bright and beautiful. Never hears a friendly hail or a warning cry, or a call for help.
In fact, I think that when at last she comes to the end of her journey, she will not know at all where she has been.
# Jersey Central Power Light Company v. Federal Power Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
319 U.S. 61
Jersey Central Power Light Company v. Federal Power Commission
Argued: March 4, 5, 1943. --- Decided: May 3, 1943
Messrs. Frederic P. Glick and Allen E. Throop, both of New York City, for petitioner New Jersey Power & Light Co.
Mr. John W. MacDonald, of Ithaca, N.Y., for petitioner Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
Mr. Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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
# Jersey City Company v. Morgan/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
160 U.S. 288
Jersey City Company v. Morgan
The supreme court of New Jersey, after referring to the legislation of congress above quoted, said: 'This particularity in the limitation and allowance as to gold coin is not found in the case of natural abrasion in silver coin. This difference is very noticeable and important in a question of statutory construction and legislative intention. It seems by these statutes that so long as a genuine silver coin is worn only by natural abrasion, is not appreciably diminished in weight, and retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint, it is a legal tender for its original value. U.S. v. Lissner, 12 Fed. 840.' The instructions of the trial court were therefore sustained, and the judgment affirmed.
By section 709 of the Revised Statutes, a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in this court upon a writ of error, where, among other things, 'any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up of claimed, by either party, under such constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority.' Neither in defendant's pleadings, nor in the motion to direct the jury to find for defendant, nor in the objection and exception to the instructions, was any such right specially set up or claimed. The claim which defendant now states it relied on is that the coin in question was not legal tender under the laws of the United States. This, however, is only a denial of the claim by plaintiff that the coin was such; and as, upon the facts determined by the verdict, the state courts so adjudged, the decision was in favor of and not against the right thus claimed under the laws of the United States, if such a right could be treated as involved on this record, and this court has no jurisdiction to review it. Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U.S. 496, 11 Sup. Ct. 385, and cases cited. And, although denying plaintiffs claim, defendant did not pretend to set up any right it had under any statute of the United States in reference to the effect of reduction in weight of silver coin by natural abrasion.
No other ground of jurisdiction under section 709 is suggested, and this is insufficient to maintain it.
Writ of error dismissed.

## 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
# Indian Home Rule (5th edition)/Note

Note
The doctrine of violence is more widely believed in than is generally realised. The votaries of violence can be divided into two classes. Some, a small and dwindling class, believe in it and are prepared to act according to their faith. Others, a very large class always, and now, after bitter experiences of the failure of constitutional agitation, larger than ever, believe in violence, but that belief does not lead them to action. It disables them from work on any basis other than force. The belief in violence serves to dissuade them from all other kinds of work or sacrifice. In both cases the evil is great.
There can be no reconstruction or hope for this land of ours, unless we eradicate the worship of force in all its forms, and establish work on a basis other than violence. A refutation of the doctrine of violence is, in the present situation of the affairs of our country, more necessary than ever.
To this end, nothing better can be conceived than the publication and wide distribution of Mr. Gandhi's famous book.
It was extremely patriotic of Messrs. Ganesh and Company to have readily agreed to undertake the work when they were approached with the request.
| Satyagrah Sabha, | |
| Madras, | C. Rajagopalachar. |
| 6—6—19. | |
# Joines v. Patterson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 544
Joines v. Patterson
Argued: April 26, 1927. --- Decided: May 31, 1927
Mr. Wm. G. Davisson, of Ardmore, Okl., for petitioner.
Mr. W. F. Semple, of Durant, Okl., for respondents.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Joines v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 573
Joines v. United States
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in the light of Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 78 S.Ct. 1253, decided this day.
Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice CLARK dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in 357 U.S. 500, 78 S.Ct. 1258, 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
# Joines v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 573
Joines v. United States
Messrs. Judson E. Ruch and R. Palmer Ingram, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Mr. Warren Olney, III, former Asst.Atty.Gen., and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

* related portals: September 11th.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
* Members of the Joint Inquiry
* Joint Inquiry Staff
* Abridged Findings and Conclusions
* Recommendations
* Final Report
** Part 1 - Findings and Conclusions
** Part 2 - Narrative—The Attacks of September 11, 2001
** Part 3 - Topics—The Attacks of September 11, 2001
** Part 4 - Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters
* Glossary
* Additional Views of Members
* Appendices
# Joint Declaration of the Greater East Asia Conference

Warning: template has been deprecated. Sources: The Pacific Campaign, The World Future Fund.
JOINT DECLARATION
It is the basic principle for the establishment of world peace that the nations of the world have each its proper place, and enjoy prosperity in common through mutual aid and assistance. The United States of America and the British Empire have in seeking their own prosperity oppressed other nations and peoples. Especially in East Asia, they indulged in insatiable aggression and exploitation, and sought to satisfy their inordinate ambition of enslaving the entire region, and finally they came to menace seriously the stability of East Asia. Herein lies the cause of the recent war. The countries of Greater East Asia, with a view to contributing to the cause of world peace, undertake to cooperate toward prosecuting the War of Greater East Asia to a successful conclusion, liberating their region from the yoke of British-American domination, and ensuring their self-existence and self-defense, and in constructing a Greater East Asia in accordance with the following principles:
1. The countries of Greater East Asia through mutual cooperation will ensure the stability of their region and construct an order of common prosperity and well-being based upon justice.
2. The countries of Greater East Asia will ensure the fraternity of nations in their region, by respecting one another's sovereignty and independence and practicing mutual assistance and amity.
3. The countries of Greater East Asia by respecting one another's traditions and developing the creative faculties of each race, will enhance the culture and civilization of Greater East Asia.
4. The countries of Greater East Asia will endeavor to accelerate their economic development through close cooperation upon a basis of reciprocity and to promote thereby the general prosperity of their region.
5. The countries of Greater East Asia will cultivate friendly relations with all the countries of the world, and work for the abolition of racial discrimination, the promotion of cultural intercourse and the opening of resources throughout the world, and contribute thereby to the progress of mankind.
# Joint Industry Board of Electrical Industry v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Fortas
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 224
Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry et al. v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
No. 616. Argued: March 25, 1968 --- Decided: May 20, 1968
An employer's unpaid contributions to an employees' annuity plan established by a collective bargaining contract are not entitled to a priority under § 64a (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, which grants priority, limited to $600 and to wages earned within three months before commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, to "wages... due to workmen." United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc., 359 U.S. 29 (1959), followed. Pp. 225-229.
379 F. 2d 211, affirmed.
Harold Stern argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief for petitioner Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry was Norman Rothfeld. Max Schwartz filed a brief for petitioner Trustee in Bankruptcy of A & S Electric Corp.
Lawrence G. Wallace argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Harris Weinstein, and Crombie J. D. Garrett.
J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, and Thomas E. Harris filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

## 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
# Insurance Company v. Nelson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 544
Insurance Company v. Nelson
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. D. G. Hooker for the appellant.
Mr. John J. Ingalls for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE WOODS 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
# Insurance Company v. Pechner/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 183
Insurance Company v. Pechner
The application for removal in this case was made under sect. 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. 1 Stat. 79. That section, so far as it is important for the determination of this case, reads as follows:--
'If a suit be commenced in any State court . . . by a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, . . . and the defendant shall, at the time of entering his app arance in such State court, file a petition for the removal of the cause for trial into the next Circuit Court, . . . it shall then be the duty of the State court to . . . proceed no further in the cause.'
Clearly this has reference to the citizenship of the parties when the suit is begun; for the language is, 'If a suit be commenced by a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, the defendant may, when he enters his appearance, petition for its removal.' The phraseology employed in the acts of 1866, 14 Stat. 307, 1867, id. 558, and 1875, 18 id. 470, and in the Revised Statutes, sect. 639, is somewhat different, and we are not now called upon to give a construction to the language there used. As to the act of 1789, we entertain no doubt in this particular.
This right of removal is statutory. Before a party can avail himself of it, he must show upon the record that his is a case which comes within the provisions of the statute. His petition for removal, when filed, becomes a part of the record in the cause. It should state facts, which, taken in connection with such as already appear, entitle him to the transfer. If he fails in this, he has not, in law, shown to the court that it cannot 'proceed further with the cause.' Having once acquired jurisdiction, the court may proceed until it is judicially informed that its power over the cause has been suspended.
It remains only to apply this rule to the facts as they appear in this record. The suit was commenced June 1, 1867. At that time there was nothing in the pleadings or process to indicate the citizenship of the plaintiff. The defendant, in its petition for removal, bearing date June 11, simply stated that the plaintiff is-that is to say, was at that date-a citizen of New York. This certainly is not stating affirmatively that such was his citizenship when the suit was commenced. The court had the right to take the case as made by the party himself, and not inquire further. If that was not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction, there was no reason why the court might not proceed with the cause. We think, therefore, that the Court of Appeals did not err in its decision.
Judgment 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