OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Oklahoma v. Texas (268 U.S. 472)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 472
Oklahoma v. Texas (268 U.S. 472)
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
Massrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., and Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for the State of Texas.
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (269 U.S. 314)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 314
Oklahoma v. Texas (269 U.S. 314)
Argued: Dec. 7, 1925. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1926
On consideration of the third report of the commissioners, heretofore selected to run, locate and mark portions of the boundary between the states of Texas and Oklahoma along the south bank of the Red river, showing that they have run, located and marked particular portions of such boundary from the one hundredth meridian of longitude of the eastern limit of Lamar county, Texas, other than the Big Bend and Ft. Augur areas covered by two reports heretofore presented and confirmed, which said third report was presented and filed herein November 16, 1925.
And no objection or exception to such report being presented, although the time therefor has expired:
It is now adjudged, ordered and decreed that the said report be in all respects confirmed.
It is further adjudged, ordered and decreed that the boundary line delineated and set forth in the report and on the maps accompanying the same and referred to therein be established and declared to be the true boundary between the states of Texas and Oklahoma along the Red river at the several places designated in such report, subject, however, to such changes as may hereafter be wronght by the natural and gradual processes known as erosion and accretion, as specified in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the decree rendered herein March 12, 1923. 261 U.S. 340, 43 S.C.t. 376 , 67 L. Ed 687.
It is further ordered that the clerk of this court to transmit to the Chief Magistrates of the states of Texas and Oklahoma copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this court, together with copies of the said report and of the maps accompanying the same.

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (267 U.S. 7)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 7
Oklahoma v. Texas (267 U.S. 7)
Argued: Jan. 19, 1925. ---
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
Messrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., and Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for the State of Texas.
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (268 U.S. 472)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 472
Oklahoma v. Texas (268 U.S. 472)
On consideration of the final report of the receiver, presented a week ago, it is ordered that the accounts, disbursements, and transactions of the receiver shown in the report be approved.
And it appearing that all of the property and moneys which came into the possession of the receiver have been disposed of, disbursed, and paid out in compliance with the instructions and orders of the court; that all of the expenses of the receivership have been paid; that the receiver has stored the books of account, records, and files of the receivership with the Security Storage Company of Washington, D. C., and has delivered the same as stored to the clerk of the court, as directed in the order of May 11, last; and that the receivership has served its purpose and is now ready to be closed:
It is considered, ordered, and decreed that the receivership in this cause be, and it now is, declared at an end; and that the receiver be, and he now is, relieved and discharged from further duty, obligation, and responsibility in the premises.
In terminating the receivership the court expresses its high appreciation of the admirable service of the receiver in satisfactorily managing a large estate in novel and difficult circumstances.

## 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (267 U.S. 452)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 452
Oklahoma v. Texas (267 U.S. 452)
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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (268 U.S. 252)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 252
Oklahoma v. Texas (268 U.S. 252)
Argued: May 11, 1925. ---
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
Messrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., and Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for the State of Texas.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Oklahoma v. Texas (269 U.S. 314)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 314
Oklahoma v. Texas (269 U.S. 314)
Argued: Dec. 7, 1925. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1926
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
# Olin v. Timken

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
155 U.S. 141
Olin v. Timken
This was a bill in equity by Henry Timken against Thomas D. Olin and Edwin D. Olin for the infringement of a patent. A decree was rendered for an injunction, with reference to a master for an account (37 Fed. 205); and upon the coming in of the master's report the same was sustained, and a decree rendered for complainant (41 Fed. 169). Defendants appeals.
This was a bill in equity, filed by Henry Timken in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio against Thomas D. Olin and Edwin D. Olin to restrain the infringement of three letters patent, namely, No. 197,689, granted to Henry Timken, November 27, 1877, for improvement in 'carriage springs'; No. 239,850, to C. W. Saladee, April 5, 1881, for 'road wagon'; reissue patent No. 9,542, granted January 25, 1881, being a reissue of patent No. 157,430, to Tilton & Stivers, for improvement in 'springs for vehicles,' dated December 1, 1874. Complainant charged that these patents were capable of conjoint use with each other, and that defendants infringed them all. The answer set up want of patentability; anticipation; prior public use; noninfringement; that defendants had the right to manufacture the vehicle springs they made, under a patent (No. 246,571) granted to W. H. Stickle, August 30, 1881, reissued to the defendant Thomas D. Olin, August 21, 1883, as reissue No. 10,372, and which patent was owned by the defendants; also, that the Tilton & Stivers' reissue was utterly void, because not issued for the same invention as the original patent, and for inventions not shown or described therein. The circuit court held the patents valid, and that the defendants infringed the single claims of the Timken and Saladee patents, and the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Tilton & Stilvers' patent, and entered a decree enjoining defendants, and referring the cause to a master for an account, which resulted in a final decree for damages to the amount of $27,897.75, and defendants appealed. The opinion will be found in 37 Fed. 205.
George J. Murray and Wm. H. Doolittle, for appellants.
Wm. M. Eccles, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Olin v. Kitzmiller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
259 U.S. 260
Olin v. Kitzmiller
Argued: April 21, 1922. --- Decided: May 29, 1922
Messrs. Arthur I. Moulton and James E. Fenton, both of Portland, Or., for appellant.
Messrs. Willis S. Moore and W. W. Banks, both of Portland, Or., for appellees.
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
# Oaths Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Oaths Act."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Oaths Act 1775, by Parliament of Great Britain.
* Oaths Act 1867 (Qld.)
* Oaths Act 1900 (NSW)
* Oaths Act 1936 (SA)
* Oaths Act, 1969 (Act 44 of 1969), an Indian Act that consolidates the law on oaths.
* Oaths Act 1978 (c. 60), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that consolidates the law on oaths.
* Oaths Act 1936 (Tas.)

## See also

* Ordering Authentication in The House’s Swearing-in Act or OATHS Act (H.R. 1000, 118th Congress), a bill seeks to allow oaths of office to be sworn on paper
* Oaths and Declarations Act
# Oates v. National Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 239
Oates v. National Bank
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. W. Hallett Phillips and Mr. William C. Oates for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. H. C. Semple for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN 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
# Oaksmith's Lessee v. Johnson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 343
Oaksmith's Lessee v. Johnson
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Edward Lander and Mr. William A. Meloy for plaintiff in error.
Mr. A. G. Riddle, contra.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD 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
# Oath of Hippocrates

This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
Written 400 B.C.E.
I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation– to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.
With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work.
Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves.
Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.
While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!
# Oaths Act 1775

Source: The Statutes, Second Revised Edition: Volume 2. London. The Stationery Office. 1889.
AN ACT to impower Justices of the Peace to administer Oaths where any Penalty is to be levied or Distress to be made, in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, wherein the same is not expressly directed.
WHEREAS it is frequently necessary for justices of the peace to administer oaths or affirmations, where penalties are to be levied or distresses to be made, in pursuance of Acts of Parliament, which they have no power to administer, unless authorised so to do by such Acts respectively: May it therefore please your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that in all cases where any penalty is directed to be levied or distress to be made, by any Act of Parliament now in force or hereafter to be made, it shall and may be lawful for any justice or justices acting under the authority of such Acts respectively, and he and they is and are hereby authorised and impowered to administer an oath or oaths, affirmation or affirmations, to any person or persons, for the purpose of levying such penalties or making such distresses respectively.
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it was created by a public body of the United Kingdom with Crown Status and commercially published before 1974.
See Crown copyright artistic works, Crown copyright non-artistic works and List of Public Bodies with Crown Status.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 51

Letter LI.
To Faustus and other Presbyters and Archimandrites in Constantinople.
(With the same purport as the last.)
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 53

Letter LIII.
A fragment of a letter from Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, to Leo (about his consecration).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 54

Letter LIV.
To Theodosius Augustus (asking for a synod in Italy).&gt;
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 60

Letter LX.
To Pulcheria Augusta.
(He hopes for her intercession to procure the condemnation of Eutyches.)
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 66

Letter LXVI.
Leo’s Reply to Letter LXV.
Leo, the pope, to the dearly-beloved brethren Constantinus, Armentarius, Audientius, Severianus, Valerianus, Ursus, Stephanus, Nectarius, Constantius, Maximus, Asclepius, Theodorus, Justus Ingenuus, Augustalis, Superventor, Ynantius, Fonteius, and Palladius.
I. The Bishop of Vienne has anticipated their appeal. He proposes to arbitrate with impartiality.
When we read your letter, beloved, which was brought to us by our sons Petronius the presbyter and Regulus the deacon, we recognized how affectionate is the regard in which you hold our brother and fellow-bishop, Ravennius: for your request is that what his predecessor deservedly lost for his excessive presumption may be restored to him. But your petition, brothers, was forestalled by the bishop of Vienne, who sent a letter and legates with the complaint that the bishop of Arles had unlawfully claimed the ordination of the bishop of Vasa.  Accordingly, as we had to show such respect both for the canons of the fathers and for your good opinion of us, that in the matter of the churches’ privileges we should allow no infringement or deprivation, it were incumbent on us to preserve the peace within the province of Vienne by employing such righteous moderation as should disregard neither ancient usage nor your desires.
II. The bishop of Vienne is to retain jurisdiction over four neighbouring cities: the rest to belong to Arles.
For after considering the arguments advanced by the clergy present on either side, we find that the cities of Vienne and Arles within your province have always been so famous, that in certain matters of ecclesiastical privilege, now one, now the other, has alternately taken precedence, though the national tradition is that formerly they had community of rights. And hence we suffer not the city of Vienne to be altogether without honour, so far as concerns ecclesiastical jurisdiction, especially as it already possesses the authority of our decree for the enjoyment of its privilege: to wit the power which, when taken away from Hilary, we thought proper to confer on the bishop of Vienne. And that he seem not suddenly and unduly lowered, he shall hold rule over the four neighbouring towns, that is, Valentia, Tarantasia, Genava and Gratianopolis, with Vienne herself for the fifth, to the bishop of which shall belong the care of all the said churches. But the other churches of the same province shall be placed under the authority and management of the bishop of Arles, who from his temperate moderation we believe will be so anxious for love and peace as by no means to consider himself deprived of that which he sees conceded to his brother. Dated 5th of May, in the consulship of Valentinianus Augustus (7th time), and the most famous Avienus (450.)

## Footnotes

* ↑ This, it will be remembered, was Hillary: see Letter X. above.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 61

Letter LXI.
To Martinus and Faustus, Presbyters.
(Reminding them of a former letter he has written to them, viz. Lett. LI.)
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Leo the Great/Letters/Letter 65

Letter LXV.
From the Bishops of the Province of Arles.
(Asking Leo to confirm the privileges of that city, which they allege date from the mission of Trophimus, by S. Peter, and more recently ratified by the Emperor Constantine.)
# On the Sublime and Beautiful/Part II/Chapter 12

INFINITY, though of another kind, causes much of our pleasure in agreeable, as well as of our delight in sublime, images. The spring is the pleasantest of the seasons; and the young of most animals, though far from being completely fashioned, afford a more agreeable sensation than the full-grown; because the imagination is entertained with the promise of something more, and does not acquiesce in the present object of the sense. In unfinished sketches of drawing, I have often seen something which pleased me beyond the best finishing; and this I believe proceeds from the cause I have just now assigned.
# On the Sublime and Beautiful/Part I/Chapter 6

MOST of the ideas which are capable of making a powerful impression on the mind, whether simply of Pain or Pleasure, or of the modifications of those, may be reduced very nearly to these two heads, self-preservation and society; to the ends of one or the other of which all our passions are calculated to answer. The passions which concern self-preservation, turn mostly on pain or danger. The ideas of pain, sickness, and death, fill the mind with strong emotions of horror; but life and health, though they put us in a capacity of being affected with pleasure, make no such impression by the simple enjoyment. The passions therefore which are conversant about the preservation of the individual turn chiefly on pain and danger, and they are the most powerful of all the passions.
# On the Sublime and Beautiful/Part II/Chapter 1

THE PASSION caused by the great and sublime in nature, when those causes operate most powerfully, is astonishment; and astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other, nor by consequence reason on that object which employs it. Hence arises the great power of the sublime, that, far from being produced by them, it anticipates our reasonings, and hurries us on by an irresistible force. Astonishment, as I have said, is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence, and respect.

## Notes

* ↑ Part I. sect. 3, 4, 7.
# On the Sublime and Beautiful/Part II

* Chapter 1: Of the Passion Caused by the Sublime
* Chapter 2: Terror
* Chapter 3: Obscurity
* Chapter 4: Of the Difference Between Clearness and Obscurity with Regard to the Passions
* Chapter 5: The Same Subject Continued
* Chapter 6: Power
* Chapter 7: Privation
* Chapter 8: Vastness
* Chapter 9: Infinity
* Chapter 10: Succession and Uniformity
* Chapter 11: Magnitude in Building
* Chapter 12: Infinity in Pleasing Objects
* Chapter 13: Difficulty
* Chapter 14: Magnificence
* Chapter 15: Light
* Chapter 16: Light in Building
* Chapter 17: Colour Considered as Productive of the Sublime
* Chapter 18: Sound and Loudness
* Chapter 19: Suddenness
* Chapter 20: Intermitting
* Chapter 21: The Cries of Animals
* Chapter 22: Smell and Taste. Bitters and Stenches
* Chapter 23: Feeling. Pain