OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Braswell v. Florida/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 873
Braswell v. Florida
I would grant certiorari in this case to hold that Florida cannot enforce a mere procedural rule by denying a criminal defendant his constitutional right to present witnesses on his own behalf. In this assault trial, the defendant asked the judge to invoke the 'Witness Rule,' directing prospective witnesses 'not to permit anyone to discuss * * * [the case] in your presence.' The judge invoked the rule but instructed only those witnesses who were then present. A defense witness who arrived late missed the instruction, and, unknown to the defendant or his counsel, heard some of the prosecution's evidence. When the defense later attempted to call this witness to support the defendant's testimony that the alleged assault was an act of self-defense, the prosecutor objected to the competency of the witness because he had violated the 'Witness Rule.' Over the defendant's objection that the witness would give material testimony in the defendant's favor, the judge refused to permit the witness to testify.
While the 'Witness Rule' has a valid purpose and can contribute to the search for truth, a breach of the rule cannot be used to deny a criminal defendant his constitutional right to obtain and present witnesses in his favor. U.S.Const. Amend. VI; cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). A simple rule of courtroom 'fairness' has been misused to destroy a sacred constitutional right.
I would grant certiorari in this case and reverse the conviction below so that the defendant might have the right to present his side of the story.

## 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
# Brashier v. Gratz

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
19 U.S. 528
Brashier v. Gratz
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kentucky.
This cause was argued by Mr. B. Hardina for the appellant, and by Mr. Sergeant for the respondents.b
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# Braswell v. Florida

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
400 U.S. 873
Braswell v. Florida
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the District Court of Appeals of Florida, Third District
No. 5148. Argued: N/A --- Decided: October 19, 1970
Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 230 So. 2d 192.

## 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
# Bratcher v. Laird

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 246
Bratcher v. Laird
Solicitor General Griswold, for respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 246
Bratcher v. Laird
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Upon consideration of the suggestion of the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the entire record, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court in order that it may consider whether it wishes to adhere to its decision in light of the contrary position now adopted by respondents. If it decides not to adhere to its former ruling, the Court of Appeals may then determine whether it would be appropriate to remand the case to the District 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
# Buck v. California

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
343 U.S. 99
Buck v. California
Argued: Nov. 28, 29, 1951. --- Decided: March 10, 1952
See 343 U.S. 932, 72 S.Ct. 756.
Mr. Manuel Ruiz, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Mr. Duane J. Carnes, San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# Buck v. Gallagher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
307 U.S. 95
Buck v. Gallagher
Argued: Jan. 10, 1939. --- Decided: April 17, 1939
On Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington.
Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N.J., Herman Finkelstein, and Louis D. Frohlich, both of New York City, for appellants.
Messrs. G. W. Hamilton, Atty. Gen., John E. Belcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Alfred J. Schweppe, of Seattle, Wash., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 96 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), was the United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, "for the protection and health of the state." It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 200
Buck v. Bell
Argued: April 22, 1927. --- Decided: May 2, 1927
Mr. I. P. Whitehead, of Lynchburg, Va., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 201-202 intentionally omitted]
Mr. A. E. Strode, of Lynchburg, Va., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 203-205 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
# Cambridge Medieval History/Volume 3

Index page: Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3.pdf
THE
CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY
planned by
J. B. BURY, M.A.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY
EDITED BY
H. M. GWATKIN, M.A., J. P. WHITNEY, D.D. J. R. TANNER, Litt.D. C. W. PREVITÉ-ORTON, M.A.
VOLUME III
GERMANY AND THE WESTERN EMPIRE
CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1922
PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY J. B. PEACE, M.A.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
| | PAGE |
| Preface. By J. P. Whitney, D.D. | v |
| Introduction. By J. P. Whitney, D.D. | viii |
| Corrigenda. | xxii |
| I. Louis the Pious. By Réné Poupardin, Professor in the Ecole pratique des hautes études of Paris. | 1 |
| II. The Carolingian Kingdoms (840–877). By Professor Réné Poupardin. | 23 |
| III. The Carolingian Kingdoms (877–918). By Professor Réné Poupardin. | 55 |
| IV. France, the Last Carolingians and the Accession of Hugh Capet (888–987). By Louis Halphen, Professor in the University of Bordeaux. | 71 |
| V. France in the Eleventh Century. By Louis Halphen. | 99 |
| VI. The Kingdom of Burgundy. By Louis Halphen | 134 |
| VII. Italy in the Tenth Century. By C. W. Previté-Orton, M.A., Librarian and sometime Fellow of St John's College. | 148 |
| VIII. Germany: Henry I and Otto the Great. By Austin Lane Poole, M.A., Fellow of St John's College, Oxford; Late Lecturer at Selwyn College, Cambridge. | 179 |
| IX. Germany: Otto II and Otto III. By Austin Lane Poole. | 204 |
| X. The Emperor Henry II by Edwin H. Holthouse, M.A., late of Trinity College, Cambridge. | 215 |
| XI. The Emperor Conrad II by Austin Lane Poole. | 253 |
| XII. The Emperor Henry III by Caroline M. Ryley, Newnham College, Cambridge. | 272 |
| XIII. The Vikings by Allen Mawer, M.A., Baines Professor of English Language and Philology at the University of Liverpool; late Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. | 309 |
| XIV. The Foundation of the Kingdom of England by William John Corbett, M.A., Fellow and Bursar of King's College, Cambridge. | 340 |
| XV. England from A.D. 954 to the Death of Edward the Confessor by William John Corbett, M.A. | 371 |
| XVI. The Western Caliphate by Dr Rafael Altamira, late Director-General of Primary Instruction (Ministry of Public Instruction); Professor of American Institutions in the University of Madrid; Senator. | 409 |
| XVII. The Church from Charlemagne to Sylvester II by Professor Louis Halphen. | 443 |
| XVIII. Feudalism by Sir Paul Vinogradoff, Hon. LL.D., F.B.A., Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford. | 458 |
| XIX. Leaning and Literature till the Death of Bede by Montague Rhodes James, Litt.D., F.B.A., Provost of Eton College, late Provost of King's College, Cambridge. | 485 |
| XX. Learning and Literature till Pope Sylvester II by Montague Rhodes James, Litt.D., F.B.A. | 514 |
| XXI. Byzantine and Romanesque Arts by W. R. Lethaby, Professor of Design, Royal College of Art. | 539 |
| Abbreviations. | 569 |
| Bibliographies. | 572 |
# Caffrey v. Oklahoma

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
177 U.S. 346
Caffrey v. Oklahoma
Argued: March 13, 14, 1900. --- Decided: April 9, 1900
Messrs. John S. Flannery, James R. Keaton, and Francis J. Kearful for plaintiff in error and appellant.
Messrs. Frederick C. Bryan, Harper S.C.unningham, and Charles Dick for defendant in error and appellee.
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
367 U.S. 886
Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy
Argued: Jan. 12, 1961. --- Decided: June 19, 1961
See 82 S.Ct. 21, 22.
Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of th 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
# Cage v. Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
498 U.S. 39
Cage v. Louisiana
No. 89-7302
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
# Cafeteria Employees Union Local 302 v. Angelos

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
320 U.S. 293
Cafeteria Employees Union Local 302 v. Angelos
Argued: and Submitted Nov. 8, 1943. --- Decided: Nov 22, 1943
Mr. Louis B. Boudin, of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Abraham Michael Katz, of New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# Cage v. Cassidy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
64 U.S. 109
Cage v. Cassidy

## 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
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Biswalo

​Biswalo.— A title of various Oriya castes.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Boddu

​Boddu (navel). — An exogamous sept, or sub-division of Idigas and Asilis. It is recorded in the Gazetteer of the Bellary district, that "in the middle of the threshold of nearly all the gateways of the ruined fortifications round the Bellary villages will be noticed a roughly cylindrical or conical stone, something like a lingam. This is the Boddu-rāyi, literally the navel stone, and so the middle stone. Once a year, in May, just before the sowing season begins, a ceremony takes place in connection with it." (See Bāriki.)
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Boipāri

​Boipāri.— A synonym of Lambādi. (See Bēpāri.)
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Boggula

​Boggula (charcoal). — An exogamous sept of Bōya and Dēvānga.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Bohora

​Bohora.— The Bohoras or Boras are " Musalman converts from the Bombay side. They are traders. In Madras they have their own high priest and their own mosque (in Georgetown). It is said that, when one of them dies, the high priest writes a note to the archangels Michael, Israel and Gabriel, asking them to take care of him in Paradise, and that the note is placed in the coffin." * They consider themselves as a superior class, and, if a member of another section enters their mosque, they clean the spot occupied by him during his prayers. They take part in certain Hindu festivals, e.g., Dipāvali, or feast of lights, at which crackers are let off.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Boishnobo

​Boishnobo.— The Boishnobos have been defined as a class of Oriya religious mendicants and priests to Sūdras. The name means worshippers of Bishnu or Vishnu. Most of them are followers of Chaitanya, the great Bengāli reformer.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Bodo

​Bodo (big). — A sub-division of Bottada, Māli, Omanaito, Pentia, and other castes. Bodo Nāyak is a title among the Gadabas, and Bodo Odiya occurs as a sub-division of Sondi.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Boksha

​Boksha.— Boksha or Boksham (treasury) is the name of a sub-division of Gollas, indicating their ​employment as treasury servants in guarding and carrying treasure. In some places, those who are employed in packing and lifting bags of money in district treasuries are still called Gollas, though they may belong to some other caste. In the Census Report, 1901, Bokkisha Vadugar (treasury northerner) was returned as a Tamil synonym for Golla.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Bochchu

​Bochchu (hairs). — An exogamous sept of Odde.
# Castes and Tribes of Southern India/Boidyo

​Boidyo.—Recorded under the name Boyidyo, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, as "literally a physician: a sub-caste of Pandito." There is said to be no difference between Panditos and Boidyos. In Ganjam they are known by the former, elsewhere by the latter name.
# Burt v. Union Central Life Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
187 U.S. 362
Burt v. Union Central Life Insurance Company
Argued: and Submitted November 6, 1902. --- Decided: December 22, 1902
This was an action to recover on a policy of life insurance, commenced in the district court of Travis county, Texas, and removed to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Texas. The policy was issued August 1, 1894. William E. Burt was the insured. The policy, in case of death, was payable to Anna M. Burt, the wife of the insured, if living, otherwise to his executors, administrators, or assigns. On September 10, 1895, the beneficiary, Anna M. Burt, and her husband, the insured, assigned a one-half interest to plaintiffs to secure them as creditors of the assignors. On July 24, 1896, the beneficiary, Anna M. Burt, died intestate, as did also the only children of the beneficiary and the insured. On February 4, 1897, the insured, William E. Burt, conveyed to the plaintiffs the remaining interest in the policy, making them the sole owners of it. They are also his sole heirs, and as such are entitled, to the full benefit of the policy, there being no administration on his estate, nor any necessity for one.
On November 27, 1896, the insured, having been indicted for the murder of his wife, Anna M. Burt, the beneficiary, was tried and convicted in the district court of Travis county, Texas, a court of competent jurisdiction, was sentenced to be put to death, and on May 27, 1898, was hanged pursuant to such sentence. The petition in this case alleged that, notwithstanding such conviction, sentence, and execution, the insured, William E. Burt, did not in fact commit the crime of murder, nor participate therein, but that, if he did, the policy was not avoided thereby because he was at the time insane.
The policy, which in its general scope was an ordinary policy of life insurance, contained these provisions:
'Third. If the insured should, without the written consent of the company, at any time enter the military or naval service, the militia excepted, or become employed in a liquor saloon, or if the insured should die by self-destruction, whether sane or insane, within three years from date hereof, this policy shall be null and void.
'The contract of insurance between the parties hereto is completely set forth in this policy and the application for the same.'
A demurrer to the petition was sustained and judgment entered for the defendant, which was thereafter affirmed by the court of appeals of the fifth circuit (44 C. C. A. 548, 105 Fed. 419), and thereupon the case was brought here on certiorari. 181 U.S. 617, 45 L. ed. 1030, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945.
Mr. Gardner Ruggles for petitioners.
Mr. Robert Ramsey for respondent.
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
# Burt v. Panjaud/Concurrence Field

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Field
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 180
Burt v. Panjaud
MR. JUSTICE FIELD concurring.
I agree with the court that the juror Holmes, in this case, could not be required to answer the questions put to him; but I go further. I do not think that the act of Congress, which requires a test oath as to past conduct, and thereby excludes a great majority of the citizens of one-half the country from the jury-box, is valid. In my judgment, the act is not only oppressive and odious, and repugnant to the spirit of our institutions, but is unconstitutional and void. As a war measure, to be enforced in the insurgent States when dominated by the national forces, it could be sustained; but after the war was over, and those States were restored to their normal and constitutional relations to the Union, it was as much out of place and as inoperative as would be a law quartering a soldier in every Southern man's house.

## Notes

* ↑ The act was passed in 1862, repealed in 1871, and re-enacted in 1874 by sect. 820, Rev. Stat.
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
# Burt v. Panjaud

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Field
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 180
Burt v. Panjaud
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. H. Bisbee, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. James M. Baker, 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
# Burt v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 129
Burt v. Smith
Argued: October 29, 1906. --- Decided: November 12, 1906
Messrs. Norris Morey and Joseph H. Morey for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 129-131 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Milton A. Fowler for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 131-133 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
# Burruss v. Wilkerson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 44
Burruss v. Wilkerson
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

## 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
# Burt v. Evory

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
133 U.S. 349
Burt v. Evory
Geo. D. Noyes, for appellants.
F. H. Betts, for appellees.
LAMAR, 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