OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Jones (345 U.S. 377)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 377
United States v. Jones
Argued: April 13, 1953. ---
Invoking the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731, the Government appeals from a dismissal of a two-count information charging appellee with violations of the Civil Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 18 U.S.C.A. § 242.
The District Court construed the information to charge that appellee, an officer in a Florida state prison, whipped certain prisoners entrusted to his custody 'for the purpose and with the intent of disciplining said prisoners.' The District Court held that mere disciplinary action by state prison officials is no offense under the Civil Rights Act, supra, and dismissed the information.
On appeal, the Government predicates its argument for reversal upon the assumption that the information charges for more than the District Court found it charged. The Government construes the information to charge that appellee wilfully extorted confessions of violations of prison rules from the prisoners and wilfully inflicted illegal summary punishment upon them, in violation of the laws of Florida and the Constitution of the United States. Thus, the Government's appeal-the theory of the prosecution-is based upon a construction of the information which differs significantly from the construction which the District Court has placed upon it.
The Criminal Appeals Act, supra, strictly limits the scope of our jurisdiction over this appeal. We may only entertain questions relating to the construction of the Civil Rights Act, supra, and its applicability to this information. We cannot re-examine the information and construe it de novo, for we are bound by the District Court's construction. United States v. Borden Co., 1939, 308 U.S. 188, 60 S.Ct. 182, 84 L.Ed. 181.
Under the Criminal Appeals Act, we have the power to remand this case to the Court of Appeals if we are of the 'opinion' that the appeal 'should have been taken to a court of appeals'. 18 U.S.C. § 3731, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731. We think this case is appropriate for the exercise of the power which Congress has entrusted to our discretion. The initial issue-and a critical issue-raised by the Government's appeal obviously involves questions relating to the correctness of the District Court's construction of the information and not to that court's interpretation of the scope of the Civil Rights Act, supra. Those questions cannot be resolves in a direct appeal to this Court, but they can be reviewed should the case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Accordingly, we remand this appeal to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in that court. It is so ordered.
Case remanded to Court of Appeals.

## 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
# United States v. Jones (345 U.S. 377)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 377
United States v. Jones
Argued: April 13, 1953. ---
Walter J. Cummings, Jr., Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for the United states.
Messrs. Patrick C. Whitaker and Thomas P. Whitaker, Tampa, Fla., 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
# United States v. Jordan

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Jordan."
* 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.
* United States v. Jordan (113 U.S. 418)
* United States v. Jordan (342 U.S. 288)
# Was I angry with Hayley who usd me so ill

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
From Notebook c.1808-1811 p.23. See also: Satiric verses and epigrams.

#### Edited text:

Was I angry with Hayley who us'd me so ill. Or can I be angry with Felpham's old Mill? Or angry with Flaxman or Cromek or Stothard Or poor Schiavonetti, whom they to death bother'd? 5 Or angry with Macklin or Boydel or Bowyer, Because they did not say "O what a Beau ye are"? At a Friend's Errors Anger shew, Mirth at the Errors of a Foe.
________________________________________

#### The original text:

Was I angry with Hayley who usd me so ill Or can I be angry with Felphams old Mill Or angry with Flaxman or Cromek or Stothard Or poor Schiavonetti whom they to death botherd 5 Or angry with Macklin or Boydel or Bowyer Because they did not say O what a Beau ye are At a Friends Errors Anger shew Mirth at the Errors of a Foe
________________________________________

## Notes

* ↑ "Blake Complete Writings", ed. Geoffrey Keynes, pub. OUP 1966/85, p. 538.
* ↑ [Or angry with Boydell or Bowyer or Ba... del.]
* ↑ "The Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake", ed. by David V. Erdman, Anchor Books, 1988, p. 503.
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
# Washburn Crosby Company v. Lee/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 641
Washburn Crosby Company v. Lee
No opinion filed in court below.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 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
# Washburn Crosby Company v. Lee

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 641
Washburn Crosby Company v. Lee
Mr. Charles B. Rugg, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
The Attorney General, for respondent.

## 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
# Weird Tales/Volume 2/Issue 4/World-Famed "Blue Man" Dies

World-Famed "Blue Man" Dies
FRED WALTERS, whose bright blue skin made him a sumptuous living for many years as a "freak," died in Bellevue hospital, New York, the other day from heart disease.
Physicians at the institution made a careful examination of Walters' body and discovered to their amazement that not only his skin, but all his organs and tissues, including brain, heart and muscles, were of the same brilliant color.
The coloring, according to doctors, was due to argyria and chronic silver poisoning. Some forty years ago Walter is said to have worked in a silver mine in Australia. If the report is correct it is probable that while at the mine Walters breathed into his body nitrate of silver, which turned him blue.
Walters is survived by his widow and a six-year-old daughter. He was an officer in the Seventeenth regiment, Duke of Cambridge's own Lancers, and saw extensive service in India. In maneuvers he was thrown and his horse fell on him. A theory expressed by European scientists was that this fall was responsible for his coloring. Prof. Verscher, of Berlin, after a thorough examination, said he believed the coloring was caused by the opening of a small valve in the heart, caused by the shock when the horse fell on Walters' chest. The valve known as the foramen overale was said to be damaged so that the circulation of blood was impeded and the venous blood mixed with the arterial.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Weird Tales/Volume 23/Issue 2/To a Bullet-Pierced Skull

To a Bullet-Pierced Skull
By Alfred I. Tooke
An empty skull! But once, no doubt, a vast Amount of knowledge into you was passed, And stored for use whenever you required; But when a bullet into you was fired, All of those years of hoarded knowledge fled In one split second, as you tumbled, dead. Only the knowledge parted with lived on. What you had hoarded, in a flash was gone.
Life is like that! It's those who give the most, Who may be truly said to live the most; While those who hoard their knowledge find life dull, And leave behind nought but an empty skull.
# Weird Tales/Volume 2/Issue 4/Will Use Tear Gas On Bootleggers

WILL USE TEAR GAS ON BOOTLEGGERS
CHIEF of Police Truax and District Attorney Lovejoy of Fresno, California, recently received a supply of the wherewithal with which to make bootleggers weep. A consignment of tear gas bombs, guaranteed to wring tears from the most hardened criminal is to be used for the purpose of persuading reluctant liquor law violators to open their doors before taking time to destroy evidence.
# Weird Tales/Volume 23/Issue 2/The Lantern

The Lantern
By Hung Long Tom
Before me Lies a silk And paper lantern. The table is teakwood With pearl inlaid, The lantern shaped Like a pagoda. And as I gaze thereon A little lady Walks slowly Down the steps And bows before me. There is no light Within the lantern burning. The light is from the eyes Of my Pagoda Girl.
# Weird Tales/Volume 2/Issue 4/Wife Slayer Drives All Night with Body in Auto

Wife Slayer Drives All Night with Body in Auto
AUTHORITIES at Charleston, Ill., were aroused by startling story of Bruce Weiman, who recently gave himself up to the sheriff and stated that he had shot his wife, intending to commit suicide immediately afterward, but had lost his nerve and had driven all night with her body in the car.
The corpse was found in the back of the automobile, covered with a robe.
He told the coroner's jury that he found his wife with an the other man at a hotel in Decatur, and induced her to return to Charleston with him, planning to kill her and then commit suicide.
He said that he shot her as she sat beside him, but that after seeing her body slide to the floor, he was unable to bring himself to the point of suicide. He stated that he then drove all night with the corpse in the car, vainly trying to get up enough nerve to kill himself, but that, when morning came, he decided to surrender to authorities and let the law take its course.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense/III. The Geneva Accords

​III The Geneva Accords 1954
A. U.S. Military Planning and Diplomatic Maneuver, January–July, 1954
B. Role and Obligations of the State of Vietnam
C. The Viet Minh Position and Sino–Soviet Strategy
D. The Intent of the Geneva Accords
UNITED STATES - VIETNAM RELATIONS
1945 - 1967
* VIETNAM TASK FORCE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SET #13
III THE GENEVA ACCORDS 1954
Sec Def Cont Nr. X-0295
1954
This part of the study examines the Geneva Conference of 1954. Section A deals with U.S. positions before and during the conference. Section B discusses the role of the Bao Dai Government of Vietnam during Geneva, and its consequent obligations. Section C relates the Viet Minh position at Geneva to overall objectives and strategy of the communist powers. The final portion, Section D, analyzes the outcome of the conference as viewed, first by the communists, then by the West, and finally as its spirit and effects can be seen in objective retrospect.
A. U.S. Military Planning and Diplomatic Maneuver, January–July, 1954
B. Role and Obligations of the State of Vietnam
C. The Viet Minh Position and Sino–Soviet Strategy
D. The Intent of the Geneva Accords
# Weird Tales/Volume 23/Issue 5/Incubus

From Weird Tales, Volume 23, Issue 5
Incubus
By August W. Derleth
She said, A creeping, crawling thing had lain Each night upon the counterpane. . . .
They said, It could not be, it only seemed To be; she had but dreamed. . . .
She said, Sometimes at night she felt its breath. Fetid like the breath of death. . . .
They said, Hallucination without question; She must be treated by suggestion. . . .
They wore her nerves down by suggestion, For hallucination without question, And were amazed one dawn to find her dead, With marks upon the pillow and the bed As if some creeping, crawling thing had lain All night beside her on the counterpane.
# Weird Tales/Volume 23/Issue 5/Mementos

From Weird Tales, Volume 23, Issue 5
Mementos
By Marie W. Linné
I will not haunt you after I am dead; My wistful, sad, unsatiated wraith Shall not be lingering near these streets we tread. These wails that look so much on love and death; My hungry laughing eyes, the words we said Shall no way haunt you after I am dead....
Oh, I'll have other things than these to do; I'll find a deep depression in a hill, And to the wind's white songs, the drip of dew. Call all lost, joyous hearts to dance their fill, So passers-by shall wonder, pausing there. Remembering joy before man knew despair.
And I will keep a tame wind for my own. And if I break your musings, now and then. Riding by, through some lamplit dusk, alone. You will remember lightly, once again, A snatch of song, a vanished jest or two.... No, but for these. I'll not come back to you.
# Voltairine De Cleyre

Originally appearing in Winn's Firebrand, Vol. II No. 1, January 1903.
Most of my readers are doubtless acquainted with the sad and terrible news of the shooting of our beloved and gifted comrade, Voltairine De Cleyre. We of The Firebrand office are so far from telegraphic communication that, as our paper goes to press, we are yet in ignorance of our strickened comrade's condition. But we hope for the best.
We are indebted to Comrade James Myers, of Philadelphia, for a report of the sad affair, and for newspaper clippings.
Herman Helcher, the assailant of Comrade De Cleyre, seems from the account, to be an unfortunate victim of one of those false and vicious ideas that form the basis of Christian ethics. The idea of love-ownership, which is the foundation of the present system of legal marriange, was the logical motive that impelled this weak-minded boy to commit his terrible deed. Thousands of similar cases have occured and are constantly occuring. Much as all of us would deplore the death of our gifted, grand and gloriously intellectual Voltairine De Cleyre, we can only pity her slayer as the victim of false and fatal teachings, which it is the mission of Anarchy to destroy.
# Wheeling Belmont Bridge Company v. Wheeling Bridge Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
138 U.S. 287
Wheeling Belmont Bridge Company v. Wheeling Bridge Company
[Statement of Case from pages 287-289 intentionally omitted]
A. J. Clarke, Henry M. Russell, and Daniel Lamb, for plaintiff in error.
W. P. Hubbard, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, 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
# Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Fox

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 193
Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Fox
Argued: March 9, 10, 1936. --- Decided: May 18, 1936
mS.CT774mMessrs. J. E. Bruce and Wright Hugus, both of Wheeling, W. Va., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 194-199 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Homer A. Holt, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 200-203 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
337 U.S. 562
Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander
Argued: March 29, 30, 1949. --- Decided: June 20, 1949
Appeals from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.
Mr. John M. Caren, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant Wheeling Steel corporation.
Mr. Charles H. Tuttle, New York City, for appellant National Distillers Products Corporation.
Mr. W. H. Annat, Wooster, Ohio, for appellees.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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
# Whelchel v. McDonald

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 122
Whelchel v. McDonald
Argued: Nov. 10, 1950. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1950
See 340 U.S. 923, 71 S.Ct. 356.
Mr. Hugh Carney, Atlanta, Tex., for petitioner.
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
159 U.S. 523
Wheeler v. United States
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
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
# Wallace v. Virginia/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 891
Wallace v. Virginia
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgments are affirmed. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice FORTAS would reverse the judgments for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice DOUGLAS in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S., at 835, 86 S.Ct., at 1816, 16 L.Ed.2d, at 961.

## 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
# Wallach v. Rudolph

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 561
Wallach v. Rudolph
Argued: April 12, 13, 1910. --- Decided: May 16, 1910
Messrs. Samuel Maddox and H. Prescott Gatley for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. James Francis Smith and Edward H. Thomas for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Lurton 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
# Wallach v. Rudolph/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
217 U.S. 561
Wallach v. Rudolph
Argued: April 12, 13, 1910. --- Decided: May 16, 1910
This case was argued with the case of Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph [[[217 U.S. 547]], 54 L. ed. --, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581], and the questions presented are substantially the same. The plaintiffs in error were interested as owners of certain lots or parts of lots involved in the general proceeding for the condemnation of property for the extension of Eleventh street, and an assessment for benefits was confirmed as to the property owned by them. They were allowed to prosecute a separate writ of error to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia from so much of the award as affected them, where the judgment was affirmed, and from that affirmation this writ of error has been sued out. The aggregate of the amounts which affect these plaintiffs in error, and in respect of which they have assigned error, is only $2,450.
Jurisdictional limit upon writs of error and appeals to or from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia is $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See act of Feb. 9, 1893 (27 Stat. at L. 436, chap. 74).
To sustain the jurisdiction, an affidavit has been filed to show that plaintiffs in error are contingently liable for an amount in excess of $5,000, if this judgment is sustained, by reason of like assessments in the same proceeding upon certain other lots or parts of lots, under other subdivision numbers, and standing in the name of different owners, being lots disposed of pending the proceeding, under an undertaking to remove the lien of any assessment for benefits which might be made herein. It does not follow as matter of law that such assessments against such other lots, to other parties, will be determined by this review. But, however this may be, 'jurisdiction is to be determined by the amount directly involved in the decree appealed from, and not by any contingent demand which may be recovered, or any contingent loss which may be sustained, by either one of the parties, through the probative effect of the decree, however direct its bearing upon such contingency.' Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U.S. 326, 328, 40 L. ed. 985, 986, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 795, 796.
The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be granted, and the writ is accordingly 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
# Wallace v. United States (389 U.S. 215)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 215
Wallace v. United States (389 U.S. 215)
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is 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
# Wallace v. Virginia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 891
Wallace v. Virginia
See 87 S.Ct. 12.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Former decision, 86 S.Ct. 1224.
George E. Allen, Sr., Anthony G. Amsterdam, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, S. W. Tucker and Henry L. Marsh III for petitioners.
Frederick T. Gray, 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