OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# New York, Chicago, & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Frank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
314 U.S. 360
New York, Chicago, & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Frank
Argued: Oct. 16, 17, 1941. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1941
On Appeal from the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Messrs. Wm. J. Donovan, of New York City, and John H. Agate, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Mr. Louis J. Vorhaus, of New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Committee v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 1056
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Committee v. United States
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY, etc., appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 917.
The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N. A., etc., appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 921.
The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY
FIRST MORTGAGE 4% BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE, petitioner,
v.
No. 914.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY, etc., petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
No. 916.
The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N. A., etc., petitioner,
v.
PENN CENTRAL COMPANY et al.
No. 920.
v.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY, etc., et al.
No. 1038.
v.
The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY
FIRST MORTGAGE 4% BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE et al.
No. 1057.
Lester C. Migdal and Lawrence W. Pollack, for New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., etc.
Joseph Auerbach, James Wm. Moore, Robert G. Bleakney, Jr., and Morris Raker, for Richard Joyce Smith.
Whitney North Seymour and Albert X. Bader, Jr., for Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.
Wilkie Bushby and Joseph Schreiber, for Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., etc.
Hugh B. Cox, Roswell B. Perkins, Ulrich Schweitzer, Francis T. P. Plimpton, Samuel E. Gates, and Robert L. King, for petitioner Penn Central Co.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Deputy Solicitor General Springer, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane, and Leonard S. Goodman, for the United States and others.
Solicitor General Griswold and Robert W. Ginnane, on the motion.
Motion to expedite granted. In Nos. 915, 917, and 921 probable jurisdiction noted. In Nos. 914, 916, 920, 1038, and 1057, petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. Cases consolidated and a total of three hours allotted for oral argument. The bondholders and the New Haven trustee shall file their main briefs by February 26, 1970, and the briefs of Penn Central, the United States, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the States of Connecticut and New York shall be filed by March 18, 1970.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of these matters.

## 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
# New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Nothnagle

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 128
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Nothnagle
Argued: April 29, 1953. --- Decided: June 8, 1953
Mr. T. J. O'Sullivan, New Haven, Conn., for petitioner.
Mr. John A. Danaher, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Committee v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 1056
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company First Mortgage 4% Bondholders Committee v. 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
# New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Henagan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 441
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Henagan
Argued: Nov. 8, 1960. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1960
Mr. Noel W. Deering, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. James W. Kelleher, Boston, Mass., 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
# New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Henagan/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
364 U.S. 441
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Henagan
Argued: Nov. 8, 1960. --- Decided: Nov 21, 1960
The respondent was a waitress in the grill car of one of petitioner's trains. She brought this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when an emergency application of the brakes brought the train to a sudden stop. A jury which heard the case in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts returned a verdict for respondent. The trial judge denied the petitioner's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, 272 F.2d 153. We granted certiorari, 362 U.S. 967, 80 S.Ct. 954, 4 L.Ed.2d 899.
The train was pulling into petitioner's station at Providence, Rhode Island, for a scheduled stop. One Montell apparently to commit suicide, stepped on the track from the station platform as the train approached alongside the platform. The engineer made the emergency application of the brakes in an unsuccessful effort to stop the train before it reached Montell. We have examined the trial record and hold that the proofs were insufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in the emergency application of the brakes which allegedly produced the respondent's injury. See Herdman v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 352 U.S. 518, 77 S.Ct. 455, 1 L.Ed.2d 508.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with direction to enter judgment for the petitioner notwithstanding the verdict. It is so ordered.
Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and cause remanded to District Court with direction.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissent. They believe there was evidence of negligence sufficient for the jury, as summarized by Judge Woodbury, speaking for a unanimous Court of Appeals. 272 F.2d 153. They also dissent from the direction to enter judgment for the petitioner, since they are of the view that if there is a reversal, there should be a new trial. See Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 396, 63 S.Ct. 1077, 1090, 87 L.Ed. 1458 (dissenting opinion).
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524, 77 S.Ct. 443, 459, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER is of the view that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.

## 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
# Mulligan's Shanty

Things is just the same as ever  On the outer Never-Never, And you look to find the stock of liquor scanty;  But we found things worse than ordin'ry,  And in fact a bit extraordin'ry, When myself and Bill the Pinker struck the shanty.  “Shanty?” says you. “What shanty?”  Why, Mulligan's shanty!
 I says “Whisky”; Bill says “Brandy”;  But there wasn't either handy, For the boss was out of liquor in that line.  “Well, I'll try a rum,” says Billy.  “Got no rum,” he answers, chilly, “But I'll recommend a decent drop o' tine.”  “Tine?” says Bill; “what tine?”  “Why, turpentine!”
 “Blow me blue!” says Bill the Pinker,  “Can't yer give us a deep-sinker? Ain't yer got a cask o' beer behind the screen?”  Bill was getting pretty cranky,  But there wasn't any swanky. Says the landlord, “Why not try a drop o' sene?”  “Sene?” says Bill; “what sene?”  “Why, kerosene!”
 Well, we wouldn't spend a tanner,  But the boss's pleasant manner All our cursing couldn't easily demolish.  Says he, “Strike me perpendic'lar  But you beggars are partic'lar, Why, the squatter in the parlour's drinking polish!”  “Polish?” says Bill; “what polish?”  “Why, furniture-polish!”
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
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
# Mulloy v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
398 U.S. 410
Mulloy v. United States
Argued: April 20, 1970. --- Decided: June 15, 1970
Robert Allen Sedler, Lexington, Ky., for petitioner.
Joseph J. Connolly, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# Multimodal Imaging in Ophthalmology

converted from xml doi:10.1155/2016/3120129
In recent years the use of different, established, and novel imaging techniques provided detailed insight into several retinal diseases. These modalities provide information about anatomy and functional changes in the retina with high resolution images which improve diagnosis and management of retinal pathologies.
The special issue on multimodal imaging in ophthalmology published seven clinical research articles.
Among published articles R. R. Bastos et al. evaluated the usefulness of multimodal image analysis to characterize vitelliform lesions in adult-onset foveomacular vitelliform dystrophy and acquired vitelliform patients. R. Mastropasqua et al. used intraoperative and postoperative spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) to evaluate anatomical results after two different ocriplasmin injection procedures for the treatment of vitreomacular traction. P.-M. Lêvèque et al. used OCT angiography to detect changes in optic nerve head vascularization in glaucoma patients. E.V. Boiko and D. S. Maltsev compared retromode scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images and OCT central retinal thickness maps as a guide for macular laser photocoagulation in patients with macular edema. L. M. Brandao et al. compared two different spectral-domain OCT systems in regard to full macular thickness and ganglion cell layer-inner plexiform layer measures and in regard to structure-function correlation when compared to standard automated perimetry. Q. Liang et al. evaluated the relationship between corneal and conjunctival epithelium thickness evaluated with SD-OCT and ocular surface clinical tests in dry eye disease patients.
I. Yuvaci et al. assessed the effects of mydriatics on choroidal thickness evaluated by means of SD-OCT with Enhanced Depth Imaging modality and anterior chamber changes evaluated using a Pentacam Scheimpflug camera system. All manuscripts underwent a peer review process before publication.
Lisa Toto Roberto dell’Omo Gian Marco Tosi Giuseppe Querques Sandrine A. Zweifel Antoine Labbé
This work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which allows free use, distribution, and creation of derivatives, so long as the license is unchanged and clearly noted, and the original author is attributed.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/The Enchiridion/Chapter 16

Chapter 16.—It is Not Essential to Man’s Happiness that He Should Know the Causes of Physical Convulsions; But It Is, that He Should Know the Causes of Good and Evil.
Now, in view of these considerations, when we are pleased with that line of Maro, “Happy the man who has attained to the knowledge of the causes of things,” we should not suppose that it is necessary to happiness to know the causes of the great physical convulsions, causes which lie hid in the most secret recesses of nature’s kingdom, “whence comes the earthquake whose force makes the deep seas to swell and burst their barriers, and again to return upon themselves and settle down.” But we ought to know the causes of good and evil as far as man may in this life know them, in order to avoid the mistakes and troubles of which this life is so full. For our aim must always be to reach that state of happiness in which no trouble shall distress us, and no error mislead us. If we must know the causes of physical convulsions, there are none which it concerns us more to know than those which affect our own health. But seeing that, in our ignorance of these, we are fain to resort to physicians, it would seem that we might bear with considerable patience our ignorance of the secrets that lie hid in the earth and heavens.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Virgil, Georgics, ii. 490.
* ↑ Ibid
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/The Enchiridion/Chapter 14

Chapter 14.—Good and Evil are an Exception to the Rule that Contrary Attributes Cannot Be Predicated of the Same Subject. Evil Springs Up in What is Good, and Cannot Exist Except in What is Good.
Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of thelogicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold. No weather is at the same time dark and bright: no food or drink is at the same time sweet and bitter: no body is at the same time and in the same place black and white: none is at the same time and in the same place deformed and beautiful. And this rule is found to hold in regard to many, indeed nearly all, contraries, that they cannot exist at the same time in any one thing. But although no one can doubt that good and evil are contraries, not only can they exist at the same time, but evil cannot exist without good, or in anything that is not good. Good, however, can exist without evil. For a man or an angel can exist without being wicked; but nothing can be wicked except a man or an angel: and so far as he is a man or an angel, he is good; so far as he is wicked, he is an evil. And these two contraries are so far co-existent, that if good did not exist in what is evil, neither could evil exist; because corruption could not have either a place to dwell in, or a source to spring from, if there were nothing that could be corrupted; and nothing can be corrupted except what is good, for corruption is nothing else but the destruction of good. From what is good, then, evils arose, and except in what is good they do not exist; nor was there any other source from which any evil nature could arise. For if there were, then, in so far as this was a being, it was certainly a good: and a being which was incorruptible would be a great good; and even one which was corruptible must be to some extent a good, for only by corrupting what was good in it could corruption do it harm.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/The Enchiridion/Chapter 19

Chapter 19.—Men’s Errors Vary Very Much in the Magnitude of the Evils They Produce; But Yet Every Error is in Itself an Evil.
In some things, then, it is a great evil to be deceived; in some it is a small evil; in some no evil at all; and in some it is an actual advantage. It is to his grievous injury that a man is deceived when he does not believe what leads to eternal life, or believes what leads to eternal death. It is a small evil for a man to be deceived, when, by taking falsehood for truth, he brings upon himself temporal annoyances; for the patience of the believer will turn even these to a good use, as when, for example, taking a bad man for a good, he receives injury from him. But one who believes a bad man to be good, and yet suffers no injury, is nothing the worse for being deceived, nor does he fall under the prophetic denunciation: “Woe to those who call evil good!” For we are to understand that this is spoken not about evil men, but about the things that make men evil. Hence the man who calls adultery good, falls justly under that prophetic denunciation. But the man who calls the adulterer good, thinking him to be chaste, and not knowing him to be an adulterer, falls into no error in regard to the nature of good and evil, but only makes a mistake as to the secrets of human conduct. He calls the man good on the ground of believing him to be what is undoubtedly good; he calls the adulterer evil, and the pure man good; and he calls this man good, not knowing him to be an adulterer, but believing him to be pure. Further, if by making a mistake one escape death, as I have said above once happened to me, one even derives some advantage from one’s mistake. But when I assert that in certain cases a man may be deceived without any injury to himself, or even with some advantage to himself, I do not mean that the mistake in itself is no evil, or is in any sense a good; I refer only to the evil that is avoided, or the advantage that is gained, through making the mistake. For the mistake, considered in itself, is an evil: a great evil if it concern a great matter, a small evil if it concern a small matter, but yet always an evil. For who that is of sound mind can deny that it is an evil to receive what is false as if it were true, and to reject what is true as if it were false, or to hold what is uncertain as certain, and what is certain as uncertain? But it is one thing to think a man good when he is really bad, which is a mistake; it is another thing to suffer no ulterior injury in consequence of the mistake, supposing that the bad man whom we think good inflicts no damage upon us. In the same way, it is one thing to think that we are on the right road when we are not; it is another thing when this mistake of ours, which is an evil, leads to some good, such as saving us from an ambush of wicked men.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. v. 20
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/The Enchiridion/Chapter 121

Chapter 121.—Love is the End of All the Commandments, and God Himself is Love.
All the commandments of God, then, are embraced in love, of which the apostle says: “Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” Thus the end of every commandment is charity, that is, every commandment has love for its aim. But whatever is done either through fear of punishment or from some other carnal motive, and has not for its principle that love which the Spirit of God sheds abroad in the heart, is not done as it ought to be done, however it may appear to men. For this love embraces both the love of God and the love of our neighbor, and “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” we may add the Gospel and the apostles. For it is from these that we hear this voice: The end of the commandment is charity, and God is love. Wherefore, all God’s commandments, one of which is, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and all those precepts which are not commandments but special counsels, one of which is, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” are rightly carried out only when the motive principle of action is the love of God, and the love of our neighbor in God. And this applies both to the present and the future life. We love God now by faith, then we shall love Him through sight. Now we love even our neighbor by faith; for we who are ourselves mortal know not the hearts of mortal men. But in the future life, the Lord “both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise of God;” for every man shall love and praise in his neighbor the virtue which, that it may not be hid, the Lord Himself shall bring to light. Moreover, lust diminishes as love grows, till the latter grows to such a height that it can grow no higher here. For “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Who then can tell how great love shall be in the future world, when there shall be no lust for it to restrain and conquer? for that will be the perfection of health when there shall be no struggle with death.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 5
* ↑ Matt. xxii. 40; comp. Rom. v. 5
* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 5; 1 John iv. 16
* ↑ Comp. Matt. v. 27 and Rom. xiii. 9
* ↑ 1 Cor. vii. 1
* ↑ 1 Cor. iv. 5
* ↑ John xv. 13
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/The Enchiridion/Chapter 15

Chapter 15.—The Preceding Argument is in No Wise Inconsistent with the Saying of Our Lord: “A Good Tree Cannot Bring Forth Evil Fruit.”
But when we say that evil springs out of good, let it not be thought that this contradicts our Lord’s saying: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.” For, as He who is the Truth says, you cannot gather grapes of thorns, because grapes do not grow on thorns. But we see that on good soil both vines and thorns may be grown. And in the same way, just as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, so an evil will cannot produce good works. But from the nature of man, which is good, may spring either a good or an evil will. And certainly there was at first no source from which an evil will could spring, except the nature of angel or of man, which was good. And our Lord Himself clearly shows this in the very same place where He speaks about the tree and its fruit. For He says: “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt,”—clearly enough warning us that evil fruits do not grow on a good tree, nor good fruits on an evil tree; but that nevertheless the ground itself, by which He meant those whom He was then addressing, might grow either kind of trees.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. vii. 18
* ↑ Matt. vii. 16
* ↑ Matt. xii. 33