OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 492
United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: Feb. 19, 1964. --- Decided: March 23, 1964
Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board.
Theophil C. Kammholz, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice WHITE 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
# United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp.

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Frankfurter

## Dissenting Opinion

    Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 593
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. ENTERPRISE WHEEL AND CAR CORP.
Argued: April 28, 1960. --- Decided: June 20, 1960
Mr. Elliott Bredhoff and David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. William C. Beatty, Huntington, W.Va., for respondent.
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, 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
# United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
376 U.S. 492
United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: Feb. 19, 1964. --- Decided: March 23, 1964
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp./Concurrence Frankfurter

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Frankfurter
* Dissenting Opinion Whittaker
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 593
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. ENTERPRISE WHEEL AND CAR CORP.
Argued: April 28, 1960. --- Decided: June 20, 1960
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
For opinion of Mr. Justice BRENNAN, joined by Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice HARLAN, see 363 U.S. 569, 80 S.Ct. 1363.
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER, dissenting.

## 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 Steelworkers of America v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 145
United Steelworkers of America v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc.
Argued: Oct. 21, 1965. --- Decided: Nov 22, 1965
Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Joseph W. Grier, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# United States v. Texas (340 U.S. 900)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 900
United States v. Texas (340 U.S. 900)
Solicitor General Perlman, for the United States.
Messrs. Price Daniel, Attorney General, and J. Chrys Dougherty, Jesse P. Luton, Jr., K. Bert Watson, Dow Heard and B. Thomas McElroy, Assistant Attorneys General, for State of Texas.

## 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. Thayer-West Point Hotel Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
329 U.S. 585
United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Company
Argued: Dec. 20, 1946. --- Decided: Jan 20, 1947
Mr.
Oscar H. Davis, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr.E. J. Ellenwood, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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
# United States v. Texas (340 U.S. 900)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 900
United States v. Texas (340 U.S. 900)
A decree is entered as follows:
'This cause came on to be heard on the motion for judgment filed by the plaintiff and was argued by counsel.
For the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions of this Court as stated in its opinion announced June 5, 1950, 339 U.S. 699, 70 S.Ct. 918, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:
1. The United States of America is now, and has been at all times pertinent hereto, possessed of paramout rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Gulf of Mexico, lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of Texas, and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward to the outer edge of the continental shelf and bounded on the east and southwest, respectively, by the eastern boundary of the State of Texas and the boundary between the United States and Mexico. The State of Texas has no title thereto or property interest therein.
2. The State of Texas, its privies, assigns, lessees, and other persons claiming under it, are hereby enjoined from carrying on any activities upon or in the submerged area described in paragraph 1 hereof for the purpose of taking or removing therefrom any petroleum, gas, or other valuable mineral products, and from taking or removing therefrom any petroleum, gas, or other valuable mineral products, except under authorization first obtained from the United States. On appropriate showing, the United States may obtain the other injunctive relief prayed for in the complaint.
3. The United States is entitled to a true, full, and accurate accounting from the State of Texas of all or any part of the sums of money derived by the State from the area described in paragraph 1 hereof subsequent to June 5, 1950, which are properly owing to the United States under the opinion entered in this case on June 5, 1950, this decree, and the applicable principles of law.
4. Jurisdiction is reserved by this Court to enter such further orders and to issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed advisable or necessary to give full force and effect to this decree.'
Mr. Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice CLARK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
209 U.S. 39
United States v. Thayer
Argued: February 25, 1908. --- Decided: March 9, 1908
Attorney General Bonaparte and Assistant Attorney General Cooley for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 39-40 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. M. McCormick and F. M. Etheridge for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 40-41 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. The Cargo of the Ship Fanny Jennings Master/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
This case bears every feature of fairness. The voyage was undertaken upon the repeal of the orders in council. The vessel was laden in the short space of four days, and sailed without a knowledge of the war. Her destination was alternative-to New York, if she could enter; if not, to a British port. Upon arriving off Montaug, she receives notice of the war, and of the danger of capture in prosecuting her voyage to New York. A pilot boat is then dispatched to New London by the captain with notice to his owners of his situation, and a request for instructions.
To call off for instructions was fair and justifiable; and to obtain them it was necessary that he should await the return of the pilot boat. Thus circumstanced, a calm obliges him to drop anchor to prevent his drifting on shore and a storm forces him into a bay for shelter. Whilst there his crew mutiny, and prevent his leaving the bay, in order to lie off and await the return of his messenger; and whilst plying in the waters between Montaug and New London, he is seized by the revenue cutter, and forced into the latter port. We are of opinion that there was nothing either in action or intention which subjected this vessel to municipal forfeiture. A condemnation is claimed on no other ground; and the decree of of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be affirmed.
The claims of the several parcels of merchandize seized in the Fanny, rest on the same circumstances, and must likewise be restored.

## 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. Jackson (104 U.S. 41)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 41
United States v. Jackson
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# United States v. Jackson (302 U.S. 628)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 628
United States v. Jackson (302 U.S. 628)
Argued: Jan. 5, 6, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Fendall Marbury, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Messrs. R. K. Wise, of Columbia, S.C., and Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# United States v. Jackson (390 U.S. 570)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    White
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 570
United States v. Jackson et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
No. 85. Argued: Dec. 7, 1967. --- Decided: April 8, 1968
The Federal Kidnapping Act provides that interstate kidnappers "shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnapped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death penalty is not imposed." The District Court dismissed the count of an indictment charging appellees with violating the Act because it makes "the risk of death" the price for asserting the right to trial by jury and thus "impairs... free exercise" of that constitutional right. The Government appealed directly to this Court.
Held: The death penalty clause imposes an impermissible burden upon the exercise of a constitutional right, but that provision is severable from the remainder of the Act and the unconstitutionality of that clause does not require the defeat of the Act as a whole. Pp. 572-591.
262 F. Supp. 716, reversed and remanded.
Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Richard A. Posner, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding.
Steven B. Duke argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief for appellee Jackson was Stephen I. Traub. Ira B. Grudberg was on the brief for appellee Walsh.

## 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. Jackalow

United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 484
United States v. Jackalow
This was an indictment against John, alias Johnny, alias John Canoe, alias Jackalow, a native of the Loo Choo Islands, for piracy on the high seas, found and tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, and came into the Supreme Court on a certificate of the judges that they were divided in opinion.
The jury, in a special verdict, found that the offence charged in the indictment was committed by the prisoner at a certain place described and designated, but did not find whether that place was within the jurisdiction of any State, within any district of the United States, or upon the high seas. Did this verdict authorize the Circuit Court to pronounce judgment of death against the prisoner? That was the question on which the judges divided.
Mr. Bates, Attorney General, and Mr. Keasley, of New Jersey, for the United States.
No counsel appeared for Jackalow.
Mr. Justice NELSON.

## 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. Jackson

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Jackson."
* 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. Jackson (104 U.S. 41), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Jackson (280 U.S. 183), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Jackson (302 U.S. 628), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Jackson (??? U.S. ???), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
   * listing incomplete
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHANG TSENG-YANG

Layout 2
​ CHANG TSENG-YANG (CHEKIANG), Governor; native of Chihli; metropolitan graduate of 1868. Appointed Salt Taotai, Fukien, Nov., 1894; Judicial Commissioner, Fukien, Dec., 1895; vacated post, April, 1896; Judicial Commissioner, Szechwan, March, 1899; Financial Commissioner, Fukien, Sept., 1899, Financial Commissioner, Hunan, Sept., 1900; Financial Commissioner, Kwangsi, Dec., 1900; Financial Commissioner, Szechwan, July, 1902; Governor of Shansi, Feb., 1903; acting Governor, Hunan, July, 1905; Governor, Chekiang, Oct., 1905.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHANG YEN-MOU

Layout 2
​ CHANG YEN-MOU (see: CHANG Yi).
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHANG YING-LIN

Layout 2
​ CHANG YING-LIN (PEKING), Chinese Official Service; native of Shantung; metropolitan graduate, 1865. Appointed Deputy Supervisor of Instruction, June, 1886; assistant Supervisor of Instruction, May, 1891; Civil Vice-Governor, Feng-tien and ex-officio Literary Chancellor, Sept., 1891; assistant Supervisor of Instruction, Aug., 1894; Chief Supervisor of Instruction, Nov., 1895; Sub-Chancellor, Grand Secretariat, July, 1896; junior Vice-President, Board of Ceremonies, Dec., 1896; senior Vice-President, Oct., 1897; junior Vice-President, Board of Civil Office, July, 1900.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHANG TSUNG-PEN, General

Layout 2
​ CHANG TSUNG-PEN, General (YEXCHOU); native of Shantung. Appointed to Yenchou-fu, Shantung province, 1904.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHANG YUNG CH ING, General

Layout 2
​ CHANG YUNG CHING, General (NINGHSIA), native of Honan. Appointed Brigadier General at Liang Chou, Kansu, 1902; transferred to Ninghsia, Kansu province, 1904.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHAO ERH-HSUN, General

Layout 2
​ CHAO ERH-HSUN, General (MUKDEN), metropolitan graduate, 1874. Appointed Prefect of Kuei-Yang; Kuei-Tung Tao, Kuei-chow, Oct., 1890; Judical Commissioner, Anhui, April, 1895; Judical Commissioner, Shansi, July, 1898; Financial Commissioner, New Dominion, Nov., 1898; Financial Commissioner, Shansi, 1902; Governor, Hunan, Jan., 1903; acting President, Board of Revenue, Aug., 1904; Officiating President, Board of Revenue, Dec., 1904; Promoter of the scheme for the formation of Bank of the Board of Revenue; Tartar-General of Mukden, Manchuria, 1905-6.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHANG YI

Layout 2
​ CHANG YI (PEKING), also known as Chang Yen-mou; Chinese Official Service; native of Chihli. Appointed Expectant Taotai, Kingsui; Administrator of Mines, Chihli and Jehol, Nov., 1898; Expectant Metropolitan Official of 4th rank and assistant Administrator of Railways, Dec., 1898; Reader, Grand Secretariat, June, 1899; attached to Prince Ch'un's Embassy to Germany, 1901; Sub-Chancellor, Grand Secretariat, Dec., 1901; assistant Director of Railways and Mines, Jan., 1902; degraded, Dec., 1903; rank of 3rd class conferred, Nov., 1904; restored to rank in spring of 1904 owing to the fact that he was proceeding to London in connection with the claims in Court respecting the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company; returned from London, 1905.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHAN TIEN-YU

Layout 2
​ CHAN TIEN-YU (see: JEME TIKN-YU).
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHAO ERH FENG, General

Layout 2
​ CHAO ERH-FENG, General (CHENG-TU), Chinese Bannerman; Chien ​Ch'ang Tao, Chengtu, Szechwan province, July 1904; commanded Brigade in punitive expedition to Patang, Anterior Tibet, to avenge death of Imperial Resident, murdered in spring, 1905; specially rewarded, 19C6.
# Who's Who in the Far East/CHAO KUO-HSIEN, General

Layout 2
​ CHAO KUO-HSIEN, General (CHAOCHOU), native of Hunan. Appointed Brigade-Gen ei-al, Chaochou-fu, Kwangtung, 1903.
# Wells v. Wilkins (118 U.S. 230)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
118 U.S. 230
Wells v. Wilkins
Argued: May 10, 1886. ---
Alex. Porter Morse and J. D. Thompson, for the motion.
C. C. Yonge, Sr., in opposition.
WAITE, C. J.

## 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
# Wells v. Wilkins (116 U.S. 393)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 393
Wells v. Wilkins
Argued: January 11, 1886. ---
These are suits in ejectment, each for a separate and distinct part of a lot in Pensacola. A judgment was rendered in each case for the recovery of the premises sued for in that case. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence found in the records show the value of the property, but on suing out the writs of error the plaintiffs in error in each case filed two affidavits to the effect that the value was more than $5,000. Since the cases were docketed here, however, the defendant in error has filed counter-affidavits which prove beyond all doubt that this is a mistake, and that the value in every one of the cases in very much less than our jurisdictional limit.
The writs of error are consequently all dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

## 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
# Wellsville Oil Company v. Miller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 6
Wellsville Oil Company v. Miller
Argued: December 6, 1916. --- Decided: March 6, 1917
Messrs. Charles H. Merillat, James A. Veasey, Lloyd A. Rowland, and Jere P. O'Meara for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Robert J. Boone for defendants in error.
Mr. Chief Justice White 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
# Welsh Melodies

Welsh Melodies
From Collections of Songs With Music by John Parry Words by
Felicia Hemans
Taken here from Poems of Felicia Hemans Blackwood 1872 Pages 145-153
(Excepting ‘The Lament of the Last Druid’, Which is from The Cambro-Briton Volume III, pages 122-123)
Compiled By Peter J. Bolton
The Welsh Melodies were published in two volumes. What became Volume Two in 1821 and Volume One in the following year. Those in Volume Two had words by a number of authors, whereas those in Volume One were all from Felicia Hemans.
Volume 2 (1821)
| The Green Isles of Ocean | 1 |
| The Lament of the Last Druid | 2 |
| The Hirlas Horn | 3 |
Volume 1 (1822)
| Druid Chorus, on the Landing of the Romans | 4 |
| The Sea Song of Gavran | 5 |
| The Hall of Cynddylan is gloomy tonight | 6 |
| The Rock of Cader Idris | 7 |
| The Lament of Llywarch Hen | 8 |
| Grufydd's Feast | 9 |
| The Cambrian in America | 10 |
| Sons of the Fair Isle forget not the time (The Fair Isle) | 11 |
| Taliesin's Prophecy | 12 |
| Owain Glyndwr's War Song | 13 |
| Prince Madoc's Farewell | 14 |
| Caswallon's Triumph | 15 |
| Press on my steed, I hear the swell (Howel's Song) | 16 |
| The Mountain Fires | 17 |
| White Snowdon (Eryri Wen) | 18 |
| The Chant of the Bards | 19 |
To these, the Collected Works add the following:
| The Harp of Wales | 20 |
| The Dying Bard's Prophecy | 21 |
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
# Wells v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 257
Wells v. United States
Argued: Feb. 10, 1943. --- Decided: March 1, 1943
Mr. Henry J. Friendly, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Wendell Berge, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Washington, D.C., 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
# Wells v. Wilkins

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Wells v. Wilkins."
* 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.
* Wells v. Wilkins (116 U.S. 393)
* Wells v. Wilkins (118 U.S. 230)
# Wells v. Wilkins (116 U.S. 393)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 393
Wells v. Wilkins
Argued: January 11, 1886. ---
J. D. Thompson, for plaintiffs in error.
C. C. Yonge, Sr., for defendant in error
WAITE, C. J.

## 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