OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Harley-Davidson Motor Company v. Buffington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
259 U.S. 414
Harley-Davidson Motor Company v. Buffington
Submitted on Motion for Judgment, etc., April 24, 1922.
Decided June 5, 1922.
Messrs. Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., Edwin B. H. Tower, Jr., of Milwaukee, Wis., and Wm. S. Hodges, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
Mr. Justice DAY 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
# Harlow has taken up his residence in Woburn

Middlesex Journal, November 9, 1861. Unsigned, regarding John Martyn Harlow.
Dr. J. M. HARLOW, of Cavendish, Vt., has taken up his residence in Woburn, for the purpose of practicing as a Physician and Surgeon. Dr. H. isa graduate of Jefferson College, Philadelphia, and has enjoyed a reputation and position in Cavendish of the highest order. His patients were among his first circles, and speak of his abilities in the best terms. Perhaps some of our readers may remember the celebrated case of a Mr. Gage who "had an iron bar four feet in length and one and one fourth inches in diameter, shot through his head, while blasting rocks at the building of the Rutland and Burlington Railroad." It was Dr. Harlow, we learn from the Bellows Falls Times, who attended him and brought him through his troubles. Dr. Harlow possesses recommendations from some of the first practitioners in New England, with some of whom he has been connected in the treatment of many difficult cases. The following, from Professor Phelps, speaks much in his favor as a physician:
"DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, Hanover, N.H., Sept. 23rd, '61.
To whom it may concern-
I take great pleasure in giving my testimony most decidedly in favor of Dr. J. M. Harlow, for many years my professional neighbor.
As a practitioner of medicine, I have ever considered him one of the most valuable that a community could possess; uniting as he does the most untiring devotion to his patients, with an amount of accurate and extensive medical knowledge, as well as a sound judgment, such as few are endowed with.
EDW. E. PHELPS, M.D., LL.D., &C, Prof. Theor. and Pract. of Medicine in Dartmouth College"
We refer our readers to Dr. Harlow's advertisement, which can be found under our Special Notice head.
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
# Harlem Shadows/When Dawn Comes to the City

Layout 2
The tired cars go grumbling by, The moaning, groaning cars, And the old milk carts go rumbling by Under the same dull stars. Out of the tenements, cold as stone, Dark figures start for work; I watch them sadly shuffle on, 'Tis dawn, dawn in New York.
But I would be on the island of the sea, In the heart of the island of the sea, Where the cocks are crowing, crowing, crowing, And the hens are cackling in the rose-apple tree, Where the old draft-horse is neighing, neighing, neighing Out on the brown dew-silvered lawn, And the tethered cow is lowing, lowing, lowing, And dear old Ned is braying, braying, braying, And the shaggy Nannie goat is calling, calling, calling ​From her little trampled corner of the long wide lea That stretches to the waters of the hill-stream falling Sheer upon the flat rocks joyously! There, oh there! on the island of the sea, There I would be at dawn.
The tired cars go grumbling by, The crazy, lazy cars, And the same milk carts go rumbling by Under the dying stars. A lonely newsboy hurries by, Humming a recent ditty; Red streaks strike through the gray of the sky, The dawn comes to the city.
But I would be on the island of the sea, In the heart of the island of the sea, Where the cocks are crowing, crowing, crowing, And the hens are cackling in the rose-apple tree, Where the old draft-horse is neighing, neighing, neighing Out on the brown dew-silvered lawn, And the tethered cow is lowing, lowing, lowing, ​And dear old Ned is braying, braying, braying, And the shaggy Nannie goat is calling, calling, calling From her little trampled corner of the long wide lea That stretches to the waters of the hill-stream falling Sheer upon the flat rocks joyously! There, oh there! on the island of the sea, There I would be at dawn.
# Harlem Shadows/Winter in the Country

Layout 2
Sweet life! how lovely to be here And feel the soft sea-laden breeze Strike my flushed face, the spruce's fair Free limbs to see, the lesser trees'
Bare hands to touch, the sparrow's cheep To heed, and watch his nimble flight Above the short brown grass asleep. Love glorious in his friendly might,
Music that every heart could bless, And thoughts of life serene, divine, Beyond my power to express, Crowd round this lifted heart of mine!
But oh! to leave this paradise For the city's dirty basement room, Where, beauty hidden from the eyes, A table, bed, bureau and broom ​In corner set, two crippled chairs All covered up with dust and grim With hideousness and scars of years, And gaslight burning weird and dim,
Will welcome me . . . And yet, and yet This very wind, the winter birds, The glory of the soft sunset, Come there to me in words.
# Harlem Shadows/When I Have Passed Away

Layout 2
When I have passed away and am forgotten, And no one living can recall my face, When under alien sod my bones lie rotten With not a tree or stone to mark the place;
Perchance a pensive youth, with passion burning, For olden verse that smacks of love and wine, The musty pages of old volumes turning, May light upon a little song of mine,
And he may softly hum the tune and wonder Who wrote the verses in the long ago; Or he may sit him down awhile to ponder Upon the simple words that touch him so.
# Harlem Shadows/Tormented

Layout 2
I will not reason, wrestle here with you, Though you pursue and worry me about; As well put forth my swarthy arm to stop The wild wind howling, darkly mad without.
The night is yours for revels; day will light. I will not fight you, bold and tigerish, For I am weak, while you are gaining strength; Peace! cease tormenting me to have your wish.
But when you're filled and sated with the flesh, I shall go swiftly to the silver stream, To cleanse my body for the spirit's sake, And sun my limbs, and close my eyes to dream.
# Harlem Shadows/Wild May

Layout 2
Aleta mentions in her tender letters, Among a chain of quaint and touching things, That you are feeble, weighted down with fetters, And given to strange deeds and mutterings. No longer without trace or thought of fear, Do you leap to and ride the rebel roan; But have become the victim of grim care, With three brown beauties to support alone. But none the less will you be in my mind, Wild May that cantered by the risky ways, With showy head-cloth flirting in the wind, From market in the glad December days; Wild May of whom even other girls could rave Before sex tamed your spirit, made you slave.
# Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 159
Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company
Argued: Jan. 14, 15, and 16, 1929. --- Decided: April 8, 1929
[Syllabus from Pages 159-161 intentionally omitted.]
Mr. Irwin Untermyer, of New York City (Messrs. Samuel Untermyer and Charles Dickerman Williams, both of New York City, on the brief), for Transit Commission of New York.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 161-171 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. George P. Nicholson, Charles L. Craig, Joseph A. Devery, and Edgar J. Kohler, all of New York City, for City of New York.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 171-177 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, James L. Quackenbush, William L. Ransom, and Jacob H. Goetz, all of New York City, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 177-189 intentionally omitted.]
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 178
Gilcrease v. McCullough
Argued: Jan. 21, 1919. --- Decided: March 3, 1919
Mr. A. J. Biddison, of Tulsa, Okl., for petitioner.
Mr. James B. Diggs, of Tulsa, Okl., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Gilderoy

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Gilderoy."
* 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.
* "Gilderoy", a poem by Thomas Campbell
* "Gilderoy", a poem by Elizabeth Wardlaw
# Gilbertville Trucking Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
371 U.S. 115
Gilbertville Trucking Company v. United States
Argued: Oct. 15, 1962. --- Decided: Dec 3, 1962
Loyd M. Starrett, Boston, Mass., for appellants, pro hac vice by special leave of Court.
Lionel Kestenbaum, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# Harris v. State

Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599 (1994), is a per curiam decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
318 Ark. 599
Harvey Harris v. State of Arkansas
Pro Se Motion for Appointment of Counsel
No. CR-634. --- Delivered: Nov. 7, 1994.
* Court Documents
* Per Curiam Decision
* CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—POST-CONVICTION RELIEF—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 37 GOVERNS OVER STATUTES.—Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(b) provides in pertinent part that all grounds for post-conviction relief, including claims that a sentence is illegal or illegally imposed, must be raised in a petition under Rule 37; statutes are given deference only to the extent that they are compatible with the rules, and conflicts which compromise these rules are resolved with the rules remaining supreme.
* CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—TIME LIMITS IMPOSED IN RULE 37 JURISDICTIONAL—RELIEF MAY NOT BE GRANTED ON AN UNTIMELY PETITION.—The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court may not grant relief on an untimely petition.
* CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—TIME LIMITATION FOR A PETITION UNDER THE RULE EXCEEDED—MOTION DENIED.—Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides that a petition under the rule is untimely if not filed within sixty days of issuance of the appellate court's mandate affirming the judgment of conviction; where the mandate was issued on January 7, 1994, but the petition to correct the sentences imposed was not filed until more than sixty days from the date of the mandate, the appellant did not file his petition to correct the sentences imposed on him within the time limit set by Rule 37; Rule 37 was controlling over Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1991), the petition was untimely, and the appellant was not entitled to relief in circuit court; the appellant's motion for appointment of counsel was denied.
Pro Se Motion for Appointment of Counsel; motion denied and appeal dismissed.
Pro se.
No response.
[PER CURIAM decision of the court.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Harris v. State (2018 Ark. 179)

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 489 (2012), that the Eighth Amendment forbade mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The court decided Miller alongside an appeal by an Arkansas juvenile offender, Kuntrell Jackson. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court in Jackson v. Norris, 2013 Ark. 175, held that Jackson was entitled to be resentenced after having the opportunity to present evidence about his age, age-related characteristics, and the nature of his crime. Then the same court held that Miller applied retroactively to other juvenile offenders serving sentences of life without parole. Kelley v. Gordon, 2015 Ark. 277.
In 2017 the Arkansas legislature passed the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act (FSMA), which set a new punishment for capital murder committed by juveniles: life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Many Miller defendants were still waiting for their resentencing hearings under Miller, Jackson and Gordon. The State argued that the FSMA had by itself resentenced all these prisoners to terms of life with parole eligibility after 30 years. The prisoners argued that they were entitled to the remedy granted by Jackson and Gordon.
In Harris v. State, 2018 Ark. 179, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the prisoners. The court held that the new punishment for capital murder did not apply retroactively to juveniles who committed their offenses before the FSMA was passed.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
2018 Ark. 179
DERRICK LYNELL HARRIS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appeal from the Drew County Circuit Court
No. CR-17-533. --- Delivered: May 24, 2018.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Wynne
* Dissenting Opinion Womack
Benca & Benca, by: Jessica Duncan Johnston; and Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Opinion of the court by Chief Justice JOHN DAN KEMP. Concurring opinion by Justice ROBIN F. WYNNE. Dissenting opinion by Justice SHAWN A. WOMACK. Justice RHONDA WOOD dissents without opinion.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Harris v. State/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Decision per curiam
​PER CURIAM. In 1993 Harvey Harris was found guilty by a jury of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to two terms of twenty years imprisonment to be served consecutively. We affirmed. Harris v. State, 315 Ark. 398, 868 ​S.W.2d 58 (1993). On April 13, 1994, Harris filed in the trial court a pro se petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1991) claiming the sentences were illegal in that the trial court should not have ordered them served consecutively. The trial court denied the petition, and Harris has filed the record in this court on appeal. He now seeks appointment of counsel. The motion is denied as it is clear that appellant Harris could not prevail in the appeal because the petition to correct sentence was untimely. See Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987).
[1] Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(b) provides in pertinent part that all grounds for post-conviction relief, including claims that a sentence is illegal or illegally imposed, must be raised in a petition under Rule 37. Statutes are given deference only to the extent that they are compatible with our rules, and conflicts which compromise these rules are resolved with our rules remaining supreme. Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 378 (1994); Hickson v. State, 316 Ark. 783, 875 S.W.2d 492 (1994).
[2, 3] Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1991) which permits the trial court to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within 120 days after receipt of the affirming mandate of the appellate court and which permits an illegal sentence to be corrected at any time is in conflict with Criminal Procedure Rule 37. Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides that a petition under the rule is untimely if not filed within sixty days of issuance of the appellate court's mandate affirming the judgment of conviction. The mandate in the instant case was issued on January 7, 1994, but the petition to correct the sentences imposed was not filed until April 13, 1994, which was more than sixty days from the date of the mandate. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court may not grant relief on an untimely petition. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). As Rule 37 controls and appellant did not file his petition to correct the sentences imposed on him within the time limit set by Rule 37, the petition was untimely and he was not entitled to relief in circuit court.
Motion denied.
# Harris v. South Carolina

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 68
Harris v. South Carolina
Argued: Nov. 16, 1948. --- Decided: June 27, 1949
Messrs. Julian B. Salley, Jr., Leonard A. Williamson, Aiken, S.C., for petitioner.
Mr. B. D. Carter, Bamberg, S.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice MURPHY and Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE join.

## 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
# Hayes v. Hocking Valley Railway Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 591
Hayes v. Hocking Valley Railway Company
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U.S. 225, 232, 27 Sup. Ct. 476, 51 L. Ed. 779; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216, 218, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544.

## 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
# Hayes v. Holly Springs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
114 U.S. 120
Hayes v. Holly Springs
H. T. Ellett, for plaintiff in error.
W. S. Featherston and Ed. M. Watson, for defendants in error.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Hayes v. Hocking Valley Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 591
Hayes v. Hocking Valley Railway Company
Mr. Chas. A. Seiders, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John F. Wilson, of Columbus, Ohio, and Lloyd T. Williams, of Toledo, Ohio (Messrs. Wilson & Rector, of Columbus, Ohio, and Brown, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
13 U.S. 164
Finley v. Williams

## 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
# Finley v. The Bank of the United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
24 U.S. 304
Finley v. The Bank of the United States

## 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
# Harrison v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Harrison v. United States."
* 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.
* Harrison v. United States (163 U.S. 140)
* Harrison v. United States (392 U.S. 219)
See also United States v. Harrison.
# Harrison v. United States (163 U.S. 140)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
163 U.S. 140
Harrison v. United States
Richard B. Kelly, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

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