OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Florida v. Burr

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
496 U.S. 914
Florida v. Burr
No. 89-1320
Former decision, 487 U.S. 1201, 108 S.Ct. 2840; 487 U.S. 1250, 109 S.Ct. 13.
Case below, 518 So.2d 903; 550 So.2d 444.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida.
June 11, 1990. The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990).
Opinion on remand, 576 So.2d 278.
Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting.
For the reasons stated by Justice STEVENS, I agree that the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court should not be vacated. In any event, adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 227, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), I would direct that the proceedings on remand be circumscribed such that the State may not impose the death sentence.
Justice BLACKMUN dissents.
Justice STEVENS, 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
# Florida v. Georgia

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Florida v. Georgia."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Florida v. Georgia (52 U.S. 293)
* Florida v. Georgia (58 U.S. 478)
# Florida v. Georgia (58 U.S. 478)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Florida v. Georgia , 58 U.S. 478 (1854) is a 1854 United States Supreme Court case invoking the Court's original jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes between states. In this case the boundary dispute was between the State of Florida and the State of Georgia. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Curtis
    Campbell
United States Supreme Court
58 U.S. 478
Florida v. State of Georgia

## 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
# Florida v. Jimeno
## Dissenting Opinion

    Marshall
United States Supreme Court
500 U.S. 248
Florida, Petitioner v. Enio Jimeno Et Al
No. 90-622 Argued: March 25, 1991. --- Decided: May 23, 1991

## Syllabus

Having stopped respondent Jimeno's car for a traffic infraction, police officer Trujillo, who had been following the car after overhearing Jimeno arranging what appeared to be a drug transaction, declared that he had reason to believe that Jimeno was carrying narcotics in the car, and asked permission to search it. Jimeno consented, and Trujillo found cocaine inside a folded paper bag on the car's floorboard. Jimeno was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Florida law, but the state trial court granted his motion to suppress the cocaine on the ground that his consent to search the car did not carry with it specific consent to open the bag and examine its contents. The Florida District Court of Appeal and Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: A criminal suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches is not violated when, after he gives police permission to search his car, they open a closed container found within the car that might reasonably hold the object of the search. The Amendment is satisfied when, under the circumstances, it is objectively reasonable for the police to believe that the scope of the suspect's consent permitted them to open the particular container. Here, the authorization to search extended beyond the car's interior surfaces to the bag, since Jimeno did not place any explicit limitation on the scope of the search and was aware that Trujillo would be looking for narcotics in the car, and since a reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of container. There is no basis for adding to the Fourth Amendment's basic test of objective reasonableness a requirement that, if police wish to search closed containers within a car, they must separately request permission to search each container. Pp. 250-252.
564 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1990), reversed and remanded.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined.
MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined. Michael J. Neimand, Miami, Fla., for petitioner.
John G. Roberts, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the U.S., as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner, by special leave of Court.
Jeffrey S. Weiner, Miami, Fla., for respondent.
Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
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
# Florida v. Georgia (52 U.S. 293)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 293
Florida v. Georgia

## 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
# Florida v. Georgia (52 U.S. 293)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
52 U.S. 293
Florida v. Georgia
MESSRS. JOHNSON and WESTCOTT, solicitors for the complainant, moved the court for leave to file the bill of complaint in the cause and for a writ of subpoena, or such process as to the court may seem proper. Whereupon this court, not being now here sufficiently advised of and concerning what order to render in the premises, took time to consider.
On consideration of the motion made in this case yesterday, by the solicitors for the complainant, it is now here ordered by the court that this bill of complaint be filed, and that process of subpoena be, and the same is hereby, awarded, as prayed for by the complainant, and that said process issue against 'The State of Georgia.'

## 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
# Fred Hardy v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
186 U.S. 224
FRED HARDY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: April 28, 1902. --- Decided: June 2, 1902
Mr. Joseph F. Gould for plaintiff in error.
Solicitor General Richards for defendant in error.
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
# Fred Ley Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 386
Fred Ley Company v. United States
Argued: Jan. 14, 1927. --- Decided: Feb 21, 1927
Mr. George A. King, of Washingon, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the United States.
Mr. Justice STONE 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
# Fred Ley Company v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 386
Fred Ley Company v. United States
Argued: Jan. 14, 1927. --- Decided: Feb 21, 1927
Appellant entered into a contract with the government for the construction of certain army cantonment buildings at Camp Devens, Massachusetts, upon a cost plus basis. The contract provided for the reimbursement of the contractor for all expenditures made in performance of the contract, including the cost of 'such bonds, fire, liability and other insurance as the contracting officer (might) approve or require. * * *' Appellant brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover the cost of public liability insurance effected by it in connection with the performance of its contract. That court found that the evidence failed to show that the liability insurance in question was ever required or approved by the contracting officer of the government or any person representing him or performing his duties, and gave judgment for the government. 60 Ct. Cl. 654.
On appeal to this court Judicial Code, §§ 242 and 243 (Comp. St. §§ 1219, 1220), before the amendment of 1925 (43 Stat. 936), appellant seeks to avoid the effect of this finding by pointing out that all the contracts for the construction of army cantonments during the late war were identical in form and that recovery has been allowed for the cost of public liability insurance in connection with the construction of Camp Zachary Taylor, Kentucky, in Mason & Hanger Co. v. United States, 56 Ct. Cl. 238, affirmed United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U.S. 323, 43 S.C.t. 128, 67 L. Ed. 286, and of Camp Grant, Illinois, in Bates & Rogers Const. Co. v. United States, 58 Ct. Cl. 392. It is urged that the records in those cases show a blanket approval by the government of the expenditures made for liability insurance in the construction of all the army cantonments. But the Court of Claims specifically found that there was no evidence that the present expenditure was required or approved. By that finding we are concluded. Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 47 S.C.t. 186, 71 L. Ed. 394; Rogers v. United States, 270 U.S. 154, 162, 46 S.C.t. 275, 70 L. Ed. 520. Moreover in Mason & Hanger v. United States, supra, the court's finding was that the contracting officer had merely approved the particular insurance involved in that suit. In Bates & Rogers Const. Co. v. United States, supra, the court based its decision upon a stipulation that the case should be controlled by the decision of this court in the Mason Case. No substantial question is presented by the appeal.
Judgment 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
# Fred the Baker commercial (1981)

Fred the Baker Time to make the donuts. The donuts... Time to make the donuts.
Narrator It isn't easy owning a Dunkin' Donuts, because unlike most supermarkets, we make our donuts fresh day and night.
Fred the Baker Except the guys who make supermarket donuts are still in bed.
Narrator Plain donuts aren't enough.
Fred the Baker Five pack— Five packs of jelly donuts!
Narrator Of course, when you make donuts this good, there is one reward—they taste so great, people buy an awful lot of them.
Fred the Baker Good morning folks.
DUNKIN' DONUTS
It's worth the trip.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) between 1978 and March 1, 1989 (inclusive) without a copyright notice, and without subsequent copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years.
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
# Fred Robertson v. Howard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
229 U.S. 254
Fred Robertson v. Howard
Argued: May 7, 1913. --- Decided: June 10, 1913
Messrs. Charles Blood Smith and Samuel Barnum for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. T. F. Garver and R. D. Garver 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
# Frederic Grant Shoe Company v. W M Laird Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 445
Frederic Grant Shoe Company v. W M Laird Company
Argued: December 2, 1908. --- Decided: February 23, 1909
Messrs. P. M. French and Satterlee, Bissell, Taylor, & French for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Hiram R. Wood and McGuire & Wood 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
# Frederic & Elfrida

Frederic & Elfrida is a short story by English writer Jane Austen
# Fog (Thoreau, "Dull water spirit—and Protean god")

From "Henry David Thoreau: The Forgotten Poems" in The Concord Saunterer (March 1976) by Frederick P. Lenz III.
Dull water spirit—and Protean god Descended cloud fast anchored to the earth That drawest too much air for shallow coasts Thou ocean branch that flowest to the sun Incense of earth, perfumed with flowers— Spirit of lakes and rivers, seas and rills Come to revisit now thy native scenes Night thoughts of earth—dream drapery Dew cloth and fairy napkin Thou wind-blown meadow of the air.
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
# Fogarty v. United States

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 8
Fogarty v. United States
Argued: Oct. 10, 1950. --- Decided: Nov 6, 1950
Mr. George M. Shkoler, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
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
# Fog

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Fog."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Fog", a poem by Carl Sandburg (The fog comes)
* "Fog", a poem by Henry David Thoreau (Dull water spirit—and Protean god)
* "Fog", a poem by Henry David Thoreau (Thou drifting meadow of the air)
* "Fog", a poem by Walter de la Mare (Stagnant this wintry gloom. Afar)
# Fogarty v. United States/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 8
Fogarty v. United States
Argued: Oct. 10, 1950. --- Decided: Nov 6, 1950
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.

## 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
# Executive Order 1302

more info.
Signed by President William H. Taft Thursday, February 16, 1911
By virtue of the power vested in me by the provisions of article 5 of the treaty of July 23, 1851 (10 Stat. L., 949), it is hereby ordered that the provisions of said article five of said treaty shall not hereafter apply to nor be of any force or effect throughout the territory ceded by said treaty to the United States and lying in the State of Minnesota with the exception of those portions of said territory described as follows:
Beginning at a point where the line between townships 129 and 130 north crosses the Boise de Sioux River; thence east along said line to the northeast corner of township 129 north, range 45 west; thence south along said range line to the northeast corner of township 122 north, range 45 west; thence east to the northeast corner of township 122 north, range 44 west; thence south along said range line to the point where it intersects the line established by said treaty of July 23, 1851; thence in a northwesterly direction along the said treaty line to the point where it touches Lake Traverse; thence north along said lake to the mouth of the Boise de Sioux River; thence up said river to the point of beginning;
And the provisions of said article five of said treaty shall continue to be in full force and effect in the territory above specified and excepted from the operation of this order until otherwise directed by Congress or the President of the United States.
The White House, February 16, 1911.
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
# Executive Order 13023

more info.
Signed by President William J. Clinton Wednesday, November 6, 1996
Federal Register page & date: 61 FR 57767, Friday, November 8, 1996
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to change the name of the "President's Council on Counter-Narcotics" to the "President's Drug Policy Council" and to make the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Veterans Affairs, and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, permanent members of the Council, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Council established by Executive Order 12992 shall henceforth be called the "President's Drug Policy Council."
Sec. 2. Section 1 of Executive Order 12992 is amended by deleting "President's Council on Counter-Narcotics" and inserting "President's Drug Policy Council" in lieu thereof.
Sec. 3. Section 2 of Executive Order 12992 is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. Membership. The Council shall comprise the:
"(a) President, who shall serve as Chairman of the Council; "(b) Vice President; "(c) Secretary of State; "(d) Secretary of the Treasury; "(e) Secretary of Defense; "(f) Attorney General; "(g) Secretary of the Interior; "(h) Secretary of Agriculture; "(i) Secretary of Health and Human Services; "(j) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; "(k) Secretary of Transportation; "(l) Secretary of Education; "(m) Secretary of Veterans Affairs; "(n) Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations; "(o) Director of the Office of Management and Budget; "(p) Chief of Staff to the President; "(q) Director of National Drug Control Policy; "(r) Director of Central Intelligence; "(s) Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; "(t) Counsel to the President; "(u) Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; "(v) National Security Advisor to the Vice President; and "(w) Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.
"As applicable, the Council shall also comprise such other officials of the departments and agencies as the President may, from time to time, designate."
William J. Clinton The White House, November 6, 1996.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 8:45 a.m., November 7, 1996]
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
# Executive Order 13015

more info.
Signed by President William J. Clinton Thursday, August 22, 1996
Federal Register page & date: 61 FR 43937, Tuesday, August 27, 1996
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment.
    There is established the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (the "Commission"). The Commission shall consist of not more than 25 members, to be appointed by the President from the public and private sectors, each of whom shall have experience or expertise in some aspect of aviation safety or security. The Vice President shall serve as the Chair of the Commission.
Sec. 2. Functions.
(a) The Commission shall advise the President on matters involving aviation safety and security, including air traffic control.
(b) The Commission shall develop and recommend to the President a strategy designed to improve aviation safety and security, both domestically and internationally.
(c) The Chair may, from time to time, invite experts to submit information to the Commission; hold hearings on relevant issues; and form committees and teams to assist the Commission in accomplishing its objectives and duties, which may include individuals other than members of the Commission.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission such information with respect to aviation safety and security as the Commission requires to fulfill its functions.
(b) The Commission shall be supported, both administratively and financially, by the Department of Transportation and such other sources (including other Federal agencies) as may lawfully contribute to Commission activities.
Sec. 4. General.
(a) I have determined that the Commission shall be established in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Notwithstanding any other Executive order, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, shall be performed by the Secretary of Transportation in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services, except that of reporting to the Congress.
(b) The Commission shall exist for a period of 6 months from the date of this order, unless extended by the President.
William J. Clinton The White House, August 22, 1996.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 8:45 a.m., August 26, 1996]
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
# Executive Order 13018

more info.
Signed by President William J. Clinton Monday, September 16, 1996
Federal Register page & date: 61 FR 49045, Wednesday, September 18, 1996
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to add 3 members to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, it is hereby ordered that the number "15" in the second sentence of section 3(a) of Executive Order No. 12975 is deleted and the number "18" is inserted in lieu thereof.
William J. Clinton The White House, September 16, 1996.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 8:45 a.m., September 17, 1996]
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
# From Poverty to Power/Part 2

The The Way of Peace is Part II of From Poverty to Power.
Layout 2