OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Windsor

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
See related: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Case Nos. 12-2335-cv(L) and 12-2435-cv(Con), Argued: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 18, 2012.

## Dissenting Opinions

    Roberts
    Scalia
    Alito
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 12–307. Argued March 27, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013
The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act—a law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and the whole realm of federal regulations—to define "marriage" and "spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA violates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In response, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3's constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 unconstitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has not complied with the judgment.
Held:
699 F.3d 169, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Roberts, C.J., joined as to Part I. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined as to Parts II and III.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Winslow

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 202
United States v. Winslow
Argued: January 10, 1913. --- Decided: February 3, 1913

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
170 U.S. 522
United States v. Winston
The defendant in error, who had been the district attorney of the United States for the district of Washington from February 19, 1890, to May 30, 1893, brought this action in the circuit court to recover for special services as an attorney rendered during that period, and there recovered a judgment. The court of appeals for the Ninth circuit struck out one claim which had been allowed, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. 44 U.S. App. 401, 19 C. C. A. 419, and 73 Fed. 149. Whereupon the United States sued out this writ of error.
The government concedes that some of the items included in the judgment of the court of appeals are correct, and disputes only three. With respect to one of these disputed items the circuit court made the following finding of fact:
'(4) That during said term of office, to wit, about the month of April, 1892, plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, appeared in the circuit court of appeals, Ninth judicial circuit, at San Francisco, in a case wherein the defendant was appellee, and the owner of the steam tug Pilot was appellant, and, as such attorney, conducted the trial of said cause, to its conclusion, for the defendant. That the attorney general of the United States allowed plaintiff for services in said cause the sum of $400, the law providing no specific compensation, and that said services were reasonably worth said sum. Of this sum, defendant paid plaintiff $212.79, retaining the balance of $187.21 on account of excess of earnings above the maximum of personal compensation and emoluments which the law permitted the plaintiff to receive for the year in which h ese services were rendered and the money earned.'
The other items are substantially similar, and it is therefore unnecessary to state the particular facts as to them.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Pradt, for the United States.
Patrick Henry Winston, pro se.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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
# Volpe v. D. C. Federation of Civic Associations/Concurrence Burger

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Order of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Burger
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.
I concur in the denial of certiorari in this case, but solely out of considerations of timing. Questions of great importance to the Washington, D.C., area are presented by the petition, not the least of which is whether the Court of Appeals has, for a second time, unjustifiably [p1031] frustrated the efforts of the Executive Branch to comply with the will of Congress as rather clearly expressed in § 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 827. If we were to grant the writ, however, it would be almost a year before we could render a decision in the case. It seems preferable, therefore, that we stay our hand. In these circumstances Congress may, of course, take any further legislative action it deems necessary to make unmistakably clear its intentions with respect to the project, even to the point of limiting or prohibiting judicial review of its directives in this respect.

## Notes

* ↑ Certain of the provisions of § 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 were apparently enacted in response to the decision in D.C. Federation of Civic Assns., Inc. v. Airis, 129 U.S. App. D.C. 125, 391 F. 2d 478, in which it was held by the planning and construction of this project had to be carried out in strict compliance with the procedural requirements of Title 7 of the D.C. Code. Section 23 (a) of the Act provides that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, or any court decision... to the contrary, the Secretary of Transportation and the government of the District of Columbia shall... construct" certain specified "routes on the Interstate System within the District of Columbia." (Emphasis added.) In § 23 (b), Congress singled out four particular projects, including this one, for special treatment by providing that work on those projects was to commence "[n]ot later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this section." In an earlier phase of the litigation involved in the instant petition, the Court of Appeals rejected the petitioners' contention that § 23 rendered inapplicable the pre-construction planning and public hearing requirements set out in various sections of Title 23 of the United States Code. D.C. Federation of Civic Assns., Inc. v. Volpe, 140 U.S. App. D.C. 162, 434 F. 2d 436. On remand following that decision, the District Court found that the petitioners had complied with all applicable provisions of Title 23 except those of § 128 relating to public hearings and those of § 109 relating to safety standards and other requirements. The Court of Appeals, in the decision that we are now being asked to review, reversed in part, holding that the petitioners had failed to comply with the number of additional pre-construction provisions of Title 23.
# Volpe v. D. C. Federation of Civic Associations
## Concurring Opinion

    Burger
Supreme Court of the United States
405 U.S. 1030
Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, et al. v. D.C. Federation of Civic Associations, et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 71-931
Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 148 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 459 F. 2d 1231.
# Williams v. Standard Oil Company of Louisiana

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 235
Williams v. Standard Oil Company of Louisiana
Argued: Nov. 23, 1928. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1929
Messrs. Charles T. Cates, Jr., of Knoxville, Tenn., James J. Lynch, of Chattanooga, Tenn., H. N. Leech, of Clarksville, Tenn., and L. D. Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 236 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. John W. Davis, of New York City, and H. Dent Minor, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee Standard Oil Co., of Louisiana.
Messrs. John B. Keeble, of Nashville, Tenn., Harry T. Klein, of New York City, and C. B. Ames, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellee Texas Co.
[Argument of Counsel from page 237 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Williams v. Union Central Life Insurance Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 170
Williams v. Union Central Life Insurance Company
Argued: Dec. 14, 1933. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1934
Messrs. Harris O. Williams and Charles O. Harris, both of San Angelo, Tex., for petitioner.
Mr. Eugene P. Locke, of Dallas, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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
# Williams v. The Bank of the United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
The judgment in the Circuit Court of Ohio was a joint judgment, upon a joint action for money lent, against three defendants; and the writ of error was sued out by one of the defendants, in his own name only, without joining the others. The Court was of opinion, that the writ of error ought to have been in the name of the three; and if the others should refuse to join in it, that it would deserve consideration whether the present plaintiff might not have summons and severance.
Writ of error dismissed.

## 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
# Williams 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. 414
Williams v. The Bank of the United States
March 8th.
IN this case, in which Mr. Wright was for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Webster, for the defendants:
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL stated, that the writ of error must be dismissed, it having issued irregularly.

## 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
# Vidyasagar, the Great Indian Educationist and Philanthropist/end matter

OPINIONS
Principal G. C. Bose M.A., of the Bangabasi College writes:—"The maniscript copy of Babu Ananta Kumar Roy's 'Vidyasagar' was shown to me for my opinion on it. I have read it with interest and profit and found it to my knowledge a correct transcript of the life and work of the great philanthropist and scholar. There is an air of freshness about the style which makes the matter a pleasant reading."
J.R. Banerji Esq. M.A., R.L., Vice-Principal, Vidasagar College and Fellow, Calcutta University says:—"'Vidyasagar' by Ananta Kumar Roy M.A., B.L., is a well-written biography of one of the greatest sons of India... ..the special feature of work under review is that it has a distinct literary flavour about it....
Dr. Mohendra Nath Sarcar M.A., Ph. D. Senior Professor of Philosophy, Sanskrit College, writes:—"The life-history of Pundit Isvar Chandra Vidyasagar, C.I.E>, of revered memory has an intrinsic value and a spontaneous attraction in itself, which in the present volume have been enhanced by the freshness of style and the ease of expression with which the author has developed the story.......One cannot fail to perceive the simple and the unique presentation of the chief features of the life, which speaks of a sympathetic understanding of, and reveals an intuitive vision into the sublime beauty of Vidyasagar's life".
# Weeds (Kelley)

* related portals: Scott County, Kentucky.
* sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item.
Weeds
By Edith Summers Kelley
New York Harcourt, Brace and Company
Copyright, 1923, by Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1956, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 67 years or less. 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
# Vikram and the Vampire or Tales of Hindu Devilry/preface

The Baital-Pachisi, or Twenty-five Tales of a Baital is the history of a huge Bat, Vampire, or Evil Spirit which inhabited and animated dead bodies. It is an old, and thoroughly Hindu, Legend composed in Sanskrit, and is the germ which culminated in the Arabian Nights, and which inspired the "Golden Ass" of Apuleius, Boccacio's "Decamerone," the "Pentamerone," and all that class of facetious fictitious literature.
The story turns chiefly on a great king named Vikram, the King Arthur of the East, who in pursuance of his promise to a Jogi or Magician, brings to him the Baital (Vampire), who is hanging on a tree. The difficulties King Vikram and his son have in bringing the Vampire into the presence of the Jogi are truly laughable; and on this thread is strung a series of Hindu fairy stories, which contain much interesting information on Indian customs and manners. It also alludes to that state, which induces Hindu devotees to allow themselves to be buried alive, and to appear dead for weeks or months, and then to return to life again; a curious state of mesmeric catalepsy, into which they work themselves by concentrating the mind and abstaining from food - a specimen of which I have given a practical illustration in the Life of Sir Richard Burton.
The following translation is rendered peculiarly; valuable and interesting by Sir Richard Burton's intimate knowledge of the language. To all who understand the ways of the East, it is as witty, and as full of what is popularly called "chaff" as it is possible to be. There is not a dull page in it, and it will especially please those who delight in the weird and supernatural, the grotesque, and the wild life.
My husband only gives eleven of the best tales, as it was thought the translation would prove more interesting in its abbreviated form.
ISABEL BURTON.
August 18th, 1893.
# Vilas v. Manila

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
220 U.S. 345
Vilas v. Manila
Argued: February 24 and 27, 1911. --- Decided: April 3, 1911
Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert, Howard Thayer Kingsbury, Paul Fuller, and Harry Weston Van Dyke for plaintiffs in error and appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 346-349 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Paul Charlton andIsaac Adams for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 349-351 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lurton 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
# Wallenstein/The Piccolomini/A1S08

SCENE VIII.
Countess, Thekla, Wallenstein, Duchess.
COUNTESS.
(observing the countenance of the Duchess) And business of no pleasing kind I see, Ere he has gladden'd at his child. The first Moment belongs to joy. Here, Friedland! father! This is thy daughter.
(Thekla approaches with a shy and timid air, and bends herself as about to kiss his hand. he receives her in his arms, and remains standing for some time lost in the feeling of her presence.)
WALLENSTEIN.
I take her as the pledge of greater fortune.
DUCHESS.
To raise up that great army for the Emperor: And after, at the close of the campaign, When you return'd home out of Pomerania, Your daughter was already in the convent, Wherein she has remain'd till now.
WALLENSTEIN.
We in the field here gave our cares and toils To make her great, and fight her a free way To the loftiest earthly good; lo! mother Nature Within the peaceful silent convent walls Has done her part, and out of her free grace Hath she bestowed on the beloved child The godlike; and now leads her thus adorned To meet her splendid fortune, and my hope.
DUCHESS. (to Thekla)
Would'st thou, my child? She counted scarce eight years, When last she saw your face.
THEKLA.
At the first glance!—My father has not alter'd. The form, that stands before me, falsifies No feature of the image that hath liv'd So long within me!
WALLENSTEIN.
(then after a pause) I was indignant at my destiny That it denied me a man-child to be Heir of my name and of my prosperous fortune, And re-illume my soon extinguish'd being In a proud line of princes. I wrong'd my destiny. Here upon this head So lovely in its maiden bloom will I
Let fall the garland of a life of war, Nor deem it lost, if only I can wreath it Transmitted to a regal ornament, Around these beauteous brows. (He clasps her in his arms as Piccolomini enters.)
# Wallenstein/The Death of Wallenstein/Advert

This copy of the work is missing a further two pages of advertisement. Another copy of the same edition from Duke University Library has the additional pages, but lacks the introductory preface and the front matter is ordered differently.
BOOKS printed for T. N. Longman and O. Rees, No. 39, Paternoster-row.
1. TRAVELS IN AFRICA, EGYPT, AND SYRIA, from the years 1792 to 1798. By W. G. Brown, 4to. Price 1l. 11s. 6d. Boards.
"Such is the outline of this Journey, which vies with any land-tour described either in ancient or modern times. The learning, the ability, and the singular opportunities of the author, have severally contributed so much to enrich his pages with new discoveries, or new observations, that his work will ever bear a high rank among books of travels. Long and perilous journeys have often been performed by men incapable of scientific observation; but in this case, profound learning and undaunted enterprize combine to produce a work perhaps unique in its kind."—Critical Review, Aug. 1799.
2. VIEW OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE during the Reign of CATHARINE THE SECOND, and to the Close of the Eighteenth Century, &c. &c. Containing an accurate Description of the Government, Manners, Customs, Religion, Extent, Boundaries, Soil, Climate, Produce, Revenue, Trade, Manufactures, &c. &c. of the several Nations that compose that extensive Empire. By William Tooke, F. R. S. Member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences; and of the Free Economical Society of St. Petersburgh. The second Edition. In Three large Volumes, 8vo. Price 1l. 7s. in Boards.
The Monthly Review is lavish in its commendations in regard to the importance of the subject; the authenticity of the sources from which it appears to be drawn, the ability which it displays in arranging a vast variety of matter, and the circumstances which united to particularly qualify the Author for undertaking and executing such a performance; and only lament that it is difficult to give, within the limits of a miscellaneous publication, an adequate idea of a Work abounding with such interesting and various information.
See also the commendations uniformly bestowed on the Work by the other Reviews.
3. A HISTORY OF RUSSIA, from the Establishment of Monarchy under Rurik to the Accession of Catharine;&nbspII. By W. Tooke, F. R. S. In Two Volumes Octavo. With 60 Portraits, engraved from a Series of Medals.
4. THE LIFE OF CATHARINE II. Empress of Russia. By W. Tooke, F. R. S. The fourth Edition, with considerable Improvements, in Three Volumes Octavo, Price 1l. 4s. in Boards. Embellished with Eleven elegant Portraits, a View of the famous Statue of Peter the Great on the Day of its Disclosure to the Public; a View of the Fortress of Schuffelburgh; and a correct Map of Russia.
The Authors of the Monthly Review bestow great encomiums on this Work: in confirmation of which they give ample extracts, and conclude their Account by saying: "Did our limited space permit, we could transcribe with pleasure many
# Wallenstein/The Piccolomini

TRANSLATED FROM A MANUSCRIPT COPY ATTESTED BY THE AUTHOR,
THE
PICCOLOMINI,
OR THE
FIRST PART OF WALLENSTEIN.
PRINTED BY G. WOODFALL, PATERNOSTER ROW.
THE
PICCOLOMINI,
OR THE
FIRST PART OF WALLENSTEIN,
A DRAMA
IN FIVE ACTS.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
FREDERICK SCHILLER
BY
S T. COLERIDGE.
LONDON :
PRINTED FOR T. N. LONGMAN AND O. REES, PATERNOSTER-ROW,
1800
* Preface
* Advert
* Dramatis Personæ
Act I.
* Scene I
* Scene II
* Scene III
* Scene IV
* Scene V
* Scene VI
* Scene VII
* Scene VIII
* Scene IX
* Scene X
* Scene XI
* Scene XII
Act II.
* Scene I
* Scene II
* Scene III
* Scene IV
* Scene V
* Scene VI
* Scene VII
* Scene VIII
* Scene IX
* Scene X
* Scene XI
* Scene XII
* Scene XIII
* Scene XIV
Act III.
* Scene I
* Scene II
* Scene III
Act IV.
* Scene I
* Scene II
* Scene III
* Scene IV
* Scene V
* Scene VI
* Scene VII
Act V.
* Scene I
* Scene II
* Scene III
* Scene IV
* Scene V
* Scene VI
# Wallenstein/The Piccolomini/A1S06

SCENE VI.
FIRST SERVANT.
SECOND SERVANT.
THIRD SERVANT.
FIRST SERVANT.
SECOND SERVANT.
SENI (with gravity).
Nothing! But yet in every earthly thing First and most principal is place and time.
FIRST SERVANT (to the Second).
must let him have his own will.
SENI (counts the chairs, half in a loud, half in a low voice, till he comes to eleven, which he repeats).
Twelve! twelve signs hath the zodiac: five and seven, The holy numbers, include themselves in twelve.
SECOND SERVANT.
I should like to know that now.
SENI.
The ten commandments.
SECOND SERVANT.
SENI.
Is mingled up of good and evil, so The five is the first number that's made up Of even and odd.
SECOND SERVANT.
FIRST SERVANT.
there is more in his words than can be seen at first sight.
THIRD SERVANT.
SECOND SERVANT.
(They hurry off: Seni follows slowly. A page brings the staff of command on a red cushion, and places it on the table, near the Duke's chair. They are announced from without, and the wings of the door fly open.)