OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Jacoway v. Denton/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 583
Jacoway v. Denton
Argued: November 14, 1871. --- Decided: April 1, 1872
This case is also before us upon a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
The defendant in error brought suit in the Circuit Court of Yell County to the September term, 1866, upon the writing obligatory executed to him by William D. Jacoway, deceased, on the 4th of October 1860, for the sum of $4500 payable one year from date, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the maturity of the obligation until its payment. The administrator interposed three pleas:
(1) That the consideration of the obligation was the purchase of slaves, and that they were all emancipated by the constitution of Arkansas adopted in 1864.
(2) That the slaves were emancipated by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the consideration of the obligation thereby wholly failed.
(3) That the contract was originally null and void.
The plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrers and gave judgment against the defendant for the amount claimed in the declaration. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and that court affirmed the judgment.
After what we have said in Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, just decided, it is sufficient to remark that the record discloses no question cognizable by this court.
The writ of error is therefore dismissed.
Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. P. Phillips for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.

## 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
# Johnson v. New Jersey (384 U.S. 719)/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Clark
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 719
Johnson v. New Jersey
Argued: March 1 and 2, 1966. --- Decided: June 20, 1966
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissents from the Court's holding that the petitioners here are not entitled to the full protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as this Court has construed them in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., p. 436, 86 S.Ct., p. 1602, for substantially the same reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, at 640, 85 S.Ct. 1731, at 1743.

## 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
# Johnson v. Mueser/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 283
Johnson v. Mueser
Argued: January 12, 1909. --- Decided: February 23, 1909
This was a proceeding of interference in which the examiner of interferences awarded priority to Mueser. This decision was in turn affirmed by the examiners-in-chief and by the Commissioner. From the decision of the Commissioner an appeal was taken to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, and that court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, and directed that its own decision be certified to the Commissioner of Patents, as required by law. The court held that, in such a proceeding, it would not review the action of the Patent Office in deciding that the issue was a patentable one, but would confine its consideration to the question of priority alone. 29 App. D. C. 61. And in the course of its opinion the court said:
'It must be borne in mind that the final judgment of this court, entitling a claimant to a patent, in either an ex parte or an interference proceeding, is not conclusive of either patentability or priority. The patent, when issued, may be attacked in the courts by parties whose interests may be affected by the monopoly claimed thereunder; and the defeated party has another remedy by proceeding in a court of equity, as provided in § 4915, Rev. Stat. (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3392).'
We think our ruling in Frasch v. Moore, 211 U.S. 1, 53 L. ed. --, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6, is applicable, and that this writ of error must be disposed of accordingly. The application for certiorari must take the same course.
Writ of error dismissed.
Certiorari 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
# Johnson v. New Jersey (384 U.S. 719)

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Clark

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 719
Johnson v. New Jersey
Argued: March 1 and 2, 1966. --- Decided: June 20, 1966
See 87 S.Ct. 12.
[Syllabus from pages 719-720 intentionally omitted]
Stanford Shmukler, Philadelphia, Pa., M. Gene Haeberle, Camden, N.J., for petitioners.
Norman Heine, Camden, N.J., for respondent.
[Amicus Curiae from pages 720-721 intentionally omitted]
Duane R. Nedrud, for National District Attorneys Ass'n, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 759, 760 and 584)
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, announced by Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

## 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
# Johnson v. New Jersey (384 U.S. 719)/Concurrence Clark

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Clark
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 719
Johnson v. New Jersey
Argued: March 1 and 2, 1966. --- Decided: June 20, 1966
Mr. Justice CLARK concurs in the opinion and judgment of the Court. He adheres, however, to the views stated in his separate opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 499, 86 S.Ct. 1640.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice WHITE concur in the opinion and judgment of the Court. They continue to believe, however, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White in Miranda v. Arizona and its companion cases, 384 U.S. 504, 526, 86 S.Ct. 1643, 1655, that the new constitutional rules promulgated in those cases are both unjustified and unwise.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissents from the Court's holding that the petitioners here are not entitled to the full protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as this Court has construed them in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., p. 436, 86 S.Ct., p. 1602, for substantially the same reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, at 640, 85 S.Ct. 1731, at 1743.

## 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
# Johnson v. Mueser

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 283
Johnson v. Mueser
Argued: January 12, 1909. --- Decided: February 23, 1909
Messrs. Melville Church and James A. Carr for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Stephen J. Cox and William Raimond Baird for defendant in error.
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
# Johnson v. New Jersey

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Johnson v. New Jersey."
* sister projects: 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.
* Johnson v. New Jersey (368 U.S. 145)
* Johnson v. New Jersey (384 U.S. 719)
# Johnson v. New Jersey (368 U.S. 145)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 145
Johnson v. New Jersey
Stanford Shmukler, for appellants.
Norman Heine, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Johnson v. New Jersey (368 U.S. 145)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 145
Johnson v. New Jersey
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## Notes

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

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* 139 F.3d 574
* IN RE IMAGE WORLDWIDE, LTD., Debtor. DAVID P. LEIBOWITZ, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee,
* v.
* PARKWAY BANK & TRUST CO., Defendant-Appellant.
* No. 97-2540
* United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
* December 16, 1997, Argued
* March 19, 1998, Decided
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1998, Reported at: 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 8106.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 97 C 923. George M. Marovich, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
For PARKWAY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Appellant: Leon C. Wexler, Chicago, IL USA.
For DAVID P. LEIBOWITZ, Appellee: David P. Leibowitz, Daniel S. Follis, FREEBORN & PETERS, Chicago, IL USA.
For IMAGE WORLDWIDE, LIMITED, Debtor: Edward A. Berman, Chicago, IL USA.
Before ESCHBACH, FLAUM and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
# In re Huguley Manufacturing Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
184 U.S. 297
In re Huguley Manufacturing Company
Argued: November 20, 1901. --- Decided: February 24, 1902
It is firmly established that where it appears that a court whose action is sought to be prohibited has clearly no jurisdiction of the cause originally, a party who has objected to the jurisdiction at the outset and has no other remedy is entitled to a writ of prohibition as a matter of right. But where there is another legal remedy, by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary. Re Rice, 155 U.S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149. And the writ of mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, and is only granted, as a general rule, where there is no other adequate remedy. Re Atlantic City R. Co. 164 U.S. 633, 41 L. ed. 579, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208.
And it may be added that it is also the general rule as to the writ of certiorari when sought as between private parties and on the ground that the proceedings below are void, that it will be granted or denied in the sound discretion of the court, and will be refused where there is a plain and adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. Re Tampa Suburban R. Co. 168 U.S. 583, 42 L. ed. 589, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177.
In this case there was, under the act of Congress of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 660, chap. 803), a plain and adequate remedy by appeal to the circuit court of appeals for the fifth circuit from the interlocutory order granting an injunction. After a final decrec an appeal to this court would lie in respect of the jurisdiction, if the question were properly raised and certified, or if issues were raised and decided bringing the case within § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 827, chap. 517], or to the circuit court of appeals. The case as presented is far from being one in which we should regard it as a proper exercise of our jurisdiction to interfere with the orderly progress of the suit below by the issue of either of the writs applied for. Re New York & P. R. S. S.C.o. 155 U.S. 523, 531, 39 L. ed. 246, 249, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183.
The contention of counsel seems to go to the extent of insisting that the proceedings in the foreclosure suit were wholly void, and without force and effect as to all persons and for all purposes, and incapable of being made otherwise; and in declining to go into the subject at large we are not to be understood as concurring in that proposition.
Leave 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
# John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 543
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston
Argued: Jan. 9, 1964. --- Decided: March 30, 1964
Charles H. Lieb, New York City, for petitioner.
Irving Rosen, New York City, for respondent.
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
# John Whiting-J. J. Adams Company v. Burrill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 39
John Whiting-J. J. Adams Company v. Burrill
Argued: Jan. 25 and 26, 1922. ---
Messrs. Charles L. Favinger, William P. Everts, Charles A. Snow, and Edward E. Blodgett, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Wm. Harold Hitchcock, of Boston, Mass., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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
# John Whiting-J. J. Adams Company v. Burrill/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
258 U.S. 39
John Whiting-J. J. Adams Company v. Burrill
Argued: Jan. 25 and 26, 1922. ---
This is a suit like the two just decided (258 U.S. 34, 42 Sup. Ct. 256, 66 L. Ed. --) to recover taxes paid under the Act of 1909 there mentioned and St. 1918, c. 253. In this case as in the other the Statutes provided a remedy that excluded an action against the Treasurer at common law. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 3, § 70; St. 1918, c. 253, § 4; St. 1918, c. 255, § 7. The District Court gave judgment for the defendant on the merits. Without going into them it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Pitney, being absent, took no part in the decision.

## 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
# John Wheeler v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
178 U.S. 321
John Wheeler v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company
Argued: May 14, 1900. --- Decided: May 28, 1900
This was a motion to dismiss the writ of error, and in default thereof to affirm the judgment of the supreme court of errors of Connecticut.
The case originated in an application by the railroad company to the judge of the superior court to appoint appraisers to estimate the damages that might arise to the plaintiffs in error from the taking of certain real estate in the city of Bridgeport, for the purpose of carrying out an agreement between the railroad company and the city of Bridgeport for the abolition of grade crossings. This agreement, which was entered into under the provisions of an act of the general assembly, 'providing for the abolition of grade crossings in Bridgeport,' provided the manner, plans, method, and time in which the grade crossings should be abolished, and the proportion of the cost thereof to be borne by the city of Bridgeport and the railroad company-the proportion of such cost to be paid by the city being one sixth and that by the railroad company five sixths, provided the total cost to be paid by the city should not exceed the sum of $400,000.
A demurrer to the application of the railroad company having been overruled, and a special defense in the answer having been stricken out as irrelevant and impertinent, an order was made appointing the appraisers. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of errors, which affirmed the judgment of the judge, of the superior court, and defendant sued out this writ of error, which defendant in error moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, or to affirm upon the ground that the question upon which the jurisdiction depends is frivolous.
Messrs. R. E. DeForest and George P. Carroll for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Wm. D. Bishop, Jr., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# John Was The Prophet Of The Lord

* related portals: Hymns.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* "John Was The Prophet Of The Lord" in Hymns and Spiritual Songs, 1707
* "John Was The Prophet Of The Lord" in Hymns for Christian Devotion, 1853
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
# John Winant to Franklin D. Roosevelt (November 14, 1941)

* related portals: World War II.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
14 NOVEMBER 1941
FROM WINANT (LONDON) FOR THE PRESIDENT
REGARDING YOUR MESSAGE OF THE 11TH, I PERSONALLY GAVE YOUR CABLE TO THE PRIME MINISTER. HE UNDERSTOOD PERFECTLY YOUR GIVING LORD HALIFAX THE MILITARY INFORMATION REFERRED TO IN YOUR MESSAGE. HE TOLD ME AND I ALSO VERIFIED THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ARMY AND THE AIRFORCE WERE GLAD TO RECEIVE OUR ESTIMATES OF THE MILITARY SITUATION IN ENGLAND. THE PRIME MINISTER DEEPLY APPRECIATED YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS IN WHAT YOU DID AND YOUR CONSIDERATION IN NOTIFYING HIM.
CR 0736
COPY FOR THE PRESIDENT.
NOTE:( REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IN ANY FORM IS NOT AUTHORIZED EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY)
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
# Kansas City Star Company v. Julian

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 589
Kansas City Star Company v. Julian
Messrs. Isaac N. Watson, Hannis Taylor, Wash. Adams, and Frank Hagerman for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John H. Atwood, O. H. Dean, and Ira Julian for defendant in error.
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
# Kansas City Star Company v. Julian/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 589
Kansas City Star Company v. Julian
Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 39 L. ed. 941, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291, 307, 308, 47 L. ed. 480, 484, 485, 63 L.R.A. 33, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375; State ex rel. Horton v. Bland, 186 Mo. 701, 85 S. W. 561; F. G. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U.S. 653, 41 L. ed. 1151, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709.
The attention of the state supreme court was not called to any Federal question until in the petition for rehearing, and that was too late. Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U.S. 580, 585, 37 L. ed. 856, 859, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934, and cases.
The judgment rested on non Federal grounds broad enough to sustain it. Cincinnati Street R. Co. v. Snell, 193 U.S. 30, 48 L. ed. 604, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 319; Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322, 53 L. ed. 530, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370.

## 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
# Kansas City Structural Steel Company v. Arkansas ex rel. Ashley County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 148
Kansas City Structural Steel Company v. Arkansas ex rel. Ashley County
Argued: Oct. 15, 1925. --- Decided: Nov 16, 1925
Messrs. Armwell L. Cooper, or Kansas City, Mo., and Charles T. Coleman and J. W. House, Jr., both of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. R. Wilson, of El Dorado, Ark., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Kansas City Terminal Railway Company v. Central Union Trust Company of New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 445
Kansas City Terminal Railway Company v. Central Union Trust Company of New York
Argued: April 23, 1926. --- Decided: June 1, 1926
Messrs. Samuel W. Sawyer, of Kansas City, Mo., Edward J. White, of St. Louis, Mo., N. H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb., and Bruce Scott and Gardiner Lathrop, both of Chicago, Ill., for Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 446-448 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Joseph M. Bryson, of St. Louis, Mo., for Central Union Trust Co. of New York.
[Argument of Counsel from page 449 intentionally omitted]
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
# Kansas City Western Railway Company v. McAdow

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 51
Kansas City Western Railway Company v. McAdow
Argued: January 18, 1916. --- Decided: January 31, 1916
Messrs. Charles F. Hutchings and McCabe Moore for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John H. Atwood and Oscar S. Hill for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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