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

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Harlan

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 341
United States v. Yazell
Argued: Oct. 13, 1965. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 341-342 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall for petitioner.
Mr. J. V. Hammett, Lampasas, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FORTAS 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
# United States v. Yazell/Concurrence Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 341
United States v. Yazell
Argued: Oct. 13, 1965. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1966
Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion with a single qualification, namely, that I place no reliance on any of the particularities of the negotiations between the parties respecting this loan. In my view the conclusion that Texas law governs the issue before us is amply justified by the Court's appraisal of the competing state and federal interests at stake, irrespective of whether the parties negotiated with specific reference to Texas law.
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice WHITE join, 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
# United States v. Yellow Cab Company

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Yellow Cab Company."
* 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.
* United States v. Yellow Cab Company (332 U.S. 218), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
* United States v. Yellow Cab Company (338 U.S. 338), ( ?? L.Ed. ??? ), ( ?? S.Ct. ??? )
# Water, is taught by thirst

Water, is taught by thirst. Land — by the Oceans passed. Transport — by throe — Peace — by its battles told — Love, by Memorial Mold — Birds, by the Snow.
# Water-Works Company v. Barret

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
103 U.S. 516
Water-Works Company v. Barret
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Augustus H. Garland for the appellant.
Mr. U. M. Rose, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

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

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 332
Water-Meter Company v. Desper
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Andrew McCallum for the appellant.
Mr. J. E. Maynadier, contra.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# United States v. Taylor (188 U.S. 283)/Dissent Brown

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Billings Brown
United States Supreme Court
188 U.S. 283
United States v. Taylor
Argued: October 27, 28, 1902. --- Decided: February 23, 1903
Mr. Justice Brown, with whom was Mr. Justice Brewer, dissenting:
I am unable to distinguish this case in principle from that of United States v. Dewey, just decided, 187 U.S. 254, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 415. In that case, the vessels were sunk and partially destroyed, but were subsequently raised, hauled into the slip, sufficiently cleaned up and overhauled to put to sea for Hong Kong under their own steam. The repairs were completed at Hong Kong, and the vessels commissioned as a part of the Navy.
In the present case, the Infanta Maria Teresa was also sunk and partially destroyed, but was raised, taken to Guantanamo, temporarily repaired, a crew put on board, was started for a port in the United States under her own steam, and was subsequently lost in a gale of wind. All the operations connected with her raising and repair were conducted by contractors engaged by the Navy Department, and supervised by a board of that department.
I submit that the fact that the vessels in Manila bay were actually repaired and commissioned as vessels of the Navy, and the Infanta Maria Teresa was not, does not constitute a distinction in principle between the two cases; but the fact that in both cases the government elected to take possession of the vessels, and undertook to repair them for purposes of its own, is the turning point in the case. Had the vessels in Manila bay been abandoned after being raised, and before they were repaired temporarily, had the Infanta Maria Teresa been either abandoned or lost before reaching Guantanamo bay, or she had been there abandoned, I should have had no doubt that they could not either of them be considered as prizes of war. But the fact that, after being examined, the Maria Teresa was temporarily repaired at Guantanamo and sent to Norfolk, with a crew on board and under her own steam, indicates clearly to my mind that the government had elected to make the vessel its own property, and her subsequent loss was the loss of the government and not of the captors. In fact, it is the election, and not the result of the election, which determines the ownership of the property.

## 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. Tenbroek/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
The court, in considering this question, must be governed by the language of the act of congress of the 4th July, 1813. By this act, a specific duty is laid or licenses to stills, employed in distilling spirituous liquors from domestic or foreign materials, and a penalty is inflicted for distilling without a license.
The distillation of spirituous liquors is performed by a double process: by the application of heat to a still containing the material. The product of the first process, after running through the still, is commonly called low wines, or singlings; the low wines undergo a second process of distillation, by which spirits are produced: they are to be proof of the first, second, third, or fourth degree, as defined and required by law. These are marketable; and here the process ends. The material from which the spirits are extracted, appears to be the object of the law. The rectification or purification of spirits, after their distillation has been complete, in order to fit them for certain purposes of combination with other materials, is no part of the process of distillation, and is not a breach of the provisions of the act of congress. The distillation of spirits, and the rectification of them after they are distilled, appear to be distinct and separate acts. No duty is specifically
It is the opinion of this court, that there is no error in the judgment of the circuit court.
This opinion is given on the request of the Attorney-General; it being probable that the same question may frequently occur. But, as this cause is improperly brought before this court by writ of error, having been first carried from the district to the circuit court by the same process, it is dismissed.e
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
# United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (215 U.S. 595)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 595
United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
The Attorney General and the Solicitor General for the United States.
No appearance for the Terminal R. R. Association et al.
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
# United States v. Temple/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
105 U.S. 97
United States v. Temple
The statute and the finding of the Court of Claims leave little room for controversy. The law as it stood when the travel was performed was explicit, and is not open to construction. We find in it no warrant for the distinction made by the accounting officers of the treasury between travel by sea and travel on land within the United States, performed by an officer of the navy while engaged on public business. To hold that for one class of travel he should have eight cents per mile, and for the other his actual expenses, is to make the law and not to construe it. When this travel was performed there was not a line on the statute-book of the United States which made any provision whatever, under any circumstances, for allowing officers of the navy, when engaged on the public business, their actual expenses of travel. The only law ever enacted which made such provision had been expressly repealed by the act on which the appellee based his claim for mileage. This act declared him entitled, without condition or limitation, to mileage at the rate of eight cents per mile, and is the only law upon the subject.
Our duty is to read the statute according to the natural and obvious import of the language, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of either limiting or extending its operation. Waller v. Harris, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 561; Pott v. Arthur, 104 U.S. 735. When the language is plain, we have no right to insert words and phrases, so as to incorporate in the statute a new and distinct provision.
The attempt to justify the decision of the accounting officers of the treasury is based on an alleged practice in conformity therewith, which, it is said, grew up in the Navy Department under the act of 1835. The practice, if such there was, finds no higher warrant or sanction in the act of 1835 than in the act of 1876. But even if it could have any influence in settling the meaning of an act passed forty-one years afterwards, under changed circumstances and conditions, we find no reference to it in either the findings or the opinion of the Court of Claims, and we cannot assume that it ever existed.
The law on which the appellee bases his case is plain and unambiguous. We must give it its natural and obvious meaning, and thus interpreted it leaves the appellant no ground to stand on.
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
# United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis."
* 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.
* United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (215 U.S. 595)
* United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (236 U.S. 194)
# Usary Act 1235

* related portals: England.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Part of the Statute of Merton
PROVISIONES DE MERTON. Statutes made at Merton in Crastino Sancti Vincentii (scil. 23. Jan.) Anno 20 HEN. III. and Ann. Dom. 1235.
Usury Act 1235
1235 (20 Hen. 3) C A P. V.
IT was provided in the Court of our Lord the King, holden at Merton on Wednesday the morrow after the Feast of St. Vincent, the 20th Year of the Reign of King HENRY the Son of King JOHN, before William * Archbishop of Canterbury, and other his Bishops and Suffragans, and before the greater part of the Earls and Barons of England, there being assembled for the Coronation of the said King, and Hellianor the Queen, about which they were all called, where it was treated for the Commonwealth of the Realm upon the Articles underwritten, thus it was provided and granted, as well of the foresaid Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, and Barons, as of the King himself and others."
Usury shall not run against any within Age.
Likewise it is provided and granted by the King, that from henceforth Usuries shall not run against any being within Age, from the time of the Death of his Ancestor (whose Heir he is) unto his lawful Age; so nevertheless, that the Payment of the principal Debt, with the Usury that was before theDeath of his Ancestor (whose Heir he is) shall not remain.'
Co. Lit. 246. b. 2 Inst. 88 1 Roll. 151.
Repealed by 37 H. 8. c. 9.
Note : this act is listed in the Chronological Table of Statutes as the Usury Act, 1235
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it was created by a public body of the United Kingdom with Crown Status and commercially published before 1974.
See Crown copyright artistic works, Crown copyright non-artistic works and List of Public Bodies with Crown Status.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Weston v. Sigler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 37
Weston v. Sigler
Mr. Lemuel C. Parker, for petitioner.
Messrs. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, George M. Ponder, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. St. Clair Favrot, for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 37
Weston v. Sigler
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to hear on the merits the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The stay of execution heretofore entered by the District Court is continued in effect pending such hearing and any appeal taken therefrom.

## 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
# Westward, Ho! (Thoreau)

"The needles of the pine"
* "Westward, Ho!" (May 9, 1841) in The Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) Vol. 7
* "The needles of the pine" from "A Walk to Wachusett" (1843) in Excursions (1863)
# Weston’s Lessee v. Stammers

* related portals: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The Lessee of Lewis and Mary Weston versus Thomas Stammers.
An Exemplification of a Will, made in England, and certified generally to have been proved, approved and registered, in the Year 1704, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, under the Seal of the said Prerogative Court, allowed, on Debate, to be read in Evidence to the Jury.
Same Cause.
Minutes of the Commissioners of property allowed to be given in Evidence.
Same Cause.
Depositions taken in a former Cause by Rule of Court with Consent of Parties (in an inferior Court) in which the present Defendant was a Party, and where the present Title (it was said) came in Question, upon Debate, were ruled by the Court to be no Evidence in this Cause: Note. It did not appear that those Depositions were read in Evidence on the former Trial.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACARTHUR, James Duncan

Layout 2
​ MACARTHUR, James Duncan (LANGSUAN), M.I.M.E., M.T.K. and S. ( Scotland ); Consulting Engineer, Managing Director, Langsuan Tin Mining Co., Ltd.; m. Margaret Amiie De Suffren Moclachlau. Educ.: Tjtin Royal Academy, Glasgow; West of Scotland Technical College. Formerly partner, Mackay and Macarthur, consulting engineers, Bangkok; now Director, Mackay and Macarthur, Ltd. Publications: Paper on Marine Engine Shafting; Paper on Comparison between Performances of two Steamships (Denny Gold Medal ). Club: Bangkok United. Address: Langsuan, Siam.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACEY, Paul Joseph Julien

Layout 2
​ MACEY, Paul Joseph Julien (LAOS), Resident; Administrator, 2nd class; 6. Feb. 12, 1852. Administrator, 4th class, July I, 1894; Admiaistrator, ​3rd class, Oct. 2o, 1898; Administrator. 2ml class, Jan. 1, 1004. Address: Laos; Judo-China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACFARLANE, Dr. Harold

Layout 2
​ MACFARLANE, Dr. Harold (HONGKONG), L.R.C.P., L.R.C.S., Edin.: Assistant Medical Officer of Health; b. July 15, 1876. Arrived in Hongkong, Sept.. 1903. Club: Hongkong. Address: Kowloon, Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACFAYDEN, Eric

Layout 2
​ MACFAYDEN, Eric (KUALA LUMPUR), B.A., Oxford; acting assistant Secretary to British Resident; b. Feb. 9, 1879. Edttc.: Clifton College and Wadham College. Was in South Africa with Imperial Yeomanry 1900; Federated Malay States Civil Service as Cadet, Selangor, Jan.,.1903; acting assistant District Officer, Kuala Selangor, April, 1904. acting Assistant Secretary to Resident, Kuala Lumpur, 1906. Decoration: South African Medal with three bars. Address: Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Federated Malay States.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACBEAN, William

Layout 2
​ MACBEAN, William (SINGAPORE), Underwriter, Agent Union Insurance Society of Canton and Singapore; b. Sept. 21, 1853, at Leghorn, Italy, e. s. of late M. P. Macbean, H.B.M. Vice -Consul, Leghorn; TO. Annie C. A. Fisher, 2nd d. of late Lieut.-Colonel A. A. Court Fisher, B.E., C.B. Educ.: Ewart High School, Wigtonshire, N.B.; Edinburgh Collegiate, etc. Was in business in London, 1870-84; Assistant Treasurer and Auditor General, Government of British North Borneo; assistant Postmaster General, Penang, 1886; Chief Assistant and acting Secretary, Straits Insurance Co., Ltd., Straits Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., 1887-92; Agent and local Manager Straits Insurance Co., Ltd., Straits Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., Hongkong, 1892-97; Agent Union Insurance Society of C -in ton, Ltd., at Singapore since 1837. dirts: Junior Athenaeum, London; Shanghai; Singapore. Aidrsss: 6, Collyer Quay, Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACDONALD, Sir Claude M.

Layout 2
​ MACDONALD, Sir Claude M. (TOKYO), K.C.B., K.C.M.G.; H.B.M. Ambassador; b. June 12, 1852, s. of late Major General J. D. MacDonald; m. 1892, Ethel, d. Major W. Cairns Armstrong, 15th Regt. Educ.: Uppingham College; Royal Military College, Sandhurst.-Entered 74th Highlanders, March 16, 1872; Captain, Feb. 12, 1831; Major (Brevet), ​Nov. 18, 1882; served throughout Egyptian Campaign of 1882, and through Suakin Expedition of 1884-1885, as a Volunteer with 42nd Highlanders; employed on Special Service in Egypt, from Feb. 13, 1883, to June 21, 1887; attached by War Office to Agency, Cairo, from 1832 to 1887; retired from Army, March 25, 1896; Acting Agent and Consul-General, Zanzibar, from July 16, 1887, to March 21, 1888; ap. pointed Commissioner on West Coast of Africa, Dec. 15, 1888; proceeded on Special Mission to Niger Territories, June, 1889; sent to Berlin with reference to delimitation of boundary between Oil Rivers Protectorate, and Colony of Cameroons; Commissioner and Consul-General in Oil Rivers (now Niger Coast) Protectorate and adjoining Native Territories; Consul to Island of Fernando Po; Consul in the Cameroons, Jan. 1, 1891; Minister to China and Corea, Jan 1, 1896; was at Peking during Siege and commanded Legation defenders, 1900; Minister to Japan and Consul-General in Japan, Oct. 26, 1930; promoted Colonel (Reserve of Officers); British Ambassador at Tokyo, 1905. Decorations: Egyptian Medal with three Clasps; Khedive's Star; 4th class of the Osmanieh; Jubilee Medal; China Medal and Clasp; Coronation Medal; 2nd class of Rising Sun. Clubs: St. James; Junior United Service; Tokyo. Address: H.B.M. Embassy, Tokyo, Japan.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACDOWELL, Dr. Donald Keith

Layout 2
​ MACDOWELL, Dr. Donald Keith (SINGAPORE), C.M.G. (1901); Principal Civil Medical Officer, Straits Settlements. Principal Medical Officer of West African Field Force; accompanied Ashanti Expedition, 1900, in that capacity; Principal Civil Medical Officer, Straits Settlements, since March, 1903. Club: Singapore. Address: Singapore, Straits Settlements.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACDONALD, Donald

Layout 2
​ MACDONALD, Donald (HONGKONG), M.I.C.E.; Engineer-in-Chief, Quarry Bay Shipyard; b. September 5, 1865. Educ.: Glasgow, graduated Glasgow University. Built Blythe dry dock and other large docks in north of England; in charge of three sections Admiralty works, Dover, 1897-1901; arrived in Hongkong, 1901; Captain of Hongkong Volunteers. Clubs: Hongkong, Jockey, Golf, Cricket, etc. Address: Hongkong.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACDONALD, Rev. Roderick John Johnstone

Layout 2
​ MACDONALD, Rev. Roderick John Johnstone (WUCHOW), M.D., M.A. and C.M.; Missionary and Physician; b. 1859; m. 1892, Margaret Ellen Corderoy. Educ.: Woodhouse Grove School; Middlesex Hospital; Edinburgh University. Was at Wesleyan Medical Mission, Fatshan Hospital, 1884; Chui Chan Fu Dispensary, 1887; Fatshan Hospital, 1893; Wuchow, 1897; appointed Medical Officer of I.M.O. and Surgeon to H.B.M. Consulate and Gaol, 1903. Address: Wesleyan Mission House, Wuchow, West River, South China.
# Who's Who in the Far East/MACGILLIVRAY, Rev. Donald

Layout 2
​ MACGILLIVRAY, Rev. Donald (SHANGHAI), M.A., B.D., Missionary; b. 1862; m. Miss Bovey, Bovey Tracey, Devon, England. Educ.: Goderick High School and Knox College and Toronto University, Canada; Gold Medallist in classics, at Toronto University; numerous other prizes and scholarships in Arts and Theology. Pioneer to Houan in 1888 for Canadian Presbyterian Church; suffered as result of rioting several times; in 1899 came to Shanghai as co-worker with Dr. Timothy Richard, D.D., in the Christian Literature Society for China where has since remained. Publications: Mandarin-Romanised Dictionary of Chinese, and many works in Chinese. Address: 44, Boone Road, Shanghai, China.
# Untangling the Web/Conclusion

Conclusion
The overall implications of the Internet for how we work and how we play are just beginning to be discussed and understood. The Internet is changing, or at the very least touching, people's lives in ways we have not imagined. I close with an example of the reach of the web. My 97-year-old aunt in South Carolina had a bit part in an obscure movie in 1989. Despite the fact that the movie has been largely forgotten, my aunt has an "Actress Filmography" in the Internet Movie Database. She, of course, was unaware of her Internet presence and was both thrilled and more than a little shocked to find that even she was "in cyberspace."
The point, of course, is that no one is out of reach of this powerful, invasive technology. We change the world with our technology and we, in turn, are altered by that same technology. It remains to be seen where our technology leads us, whether into an "endless frontier" or, more ominously, into a "cemetery of dead ideas."
* ↑ Vannevar Bush, Science: The Endless Frontier, Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1945.
* ↑ Miguel de Unamuno, The Tragic Sense of Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. (November 2005), p. 100.