OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Black
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 206
Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company
Argued: Oct. 15 and 16, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 22, 1952
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Acting Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Albert R. Connelly, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice VINSON 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Mandel Brothers, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 385
Federal Trade Commission v. Mandel Brothers, Inc.
Argued: March 23, 1959. --- Decided: May 4, 1959
Mr. Daniel M. Friedman Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Samuel H. Horne, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Millers' National Federation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 743
Federal Trade Commission v. Millers' National Federation
The Attorney General, for petitioner.

## 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
# Federal Trade Commission v. Mary Carter Paint Company

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 46
Federal Trade Commission v. Mary Carter Paint Company
Argued: Oct. 12, 1965. --- Decided: Nov 8, 1965
Nathan Lewin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
David W. Peck, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Four Nights Drunk (American version)
## Four Nights Drunk (American version)

This is also called, "You Old Fool".
I came home the other night as drunk (alternative tired) as I could be,
I saw a horse in the stable where my horse ought to be,
I said to my wife, my pretty little wife, explain this thing to me,
What’s this horse (alternative mule)doing here in the stable where my horse ought to be?
You old fool, you blind fool, can’t you plainly see,
It’s nothing but a milking cow my mother sent to me,
Well I’ve travelled this wide world over, ten thousand miles or more,
(Alternative) Well I’ve travelled this wide world over, and some crazy things I saw,
But a saddle and a bridle on a milking cow I never did see before.
I came home the next night as drunk as I could be,
And I saw a hat on the hat rack where my hat ought to be,
I said to my wife, my pretty little wife, explain this thing to me,
What’s this hat here on the hat rack where my hat ought to be?
You old fool, you blind fool, can’t you plainly see,
It’s nothing but a chamber pot my mother gave to me,
Well I’ve travelled this wide world over, ten thousand miles or more,
(alternative) Well I've been all round the world, the Gulf of Mexica, But a hatband on a chamber pot I never did see before. (Alternative) A J B Stetson chamber pot I never did see before.
I came home the next night as drunk as I could be,
And there was a pair of pants where my pants ought to be
I said to my wife, my pretty little wife, explain this thing to me,
What’s these pants here on the chair where my pants ought to be?
You old fool, you blind fool, can’t you plainly see,
It’s nothing but a dish rag my mother gave to me,
Well I’ve travelled this wide world over, ten thousand miles or more,
But cuffs and a zipper on a dish rag I never did see before.
I came home the next night as drunk as I could be,
And there was head on the pillow where my head ought to be.
I said to my wife, my pretty little wife, explain this thing to me,
What’s this head here on the pillow where my head ought to be?
You old fool, you blind fool, can’t you plainly see,
It’s nothing but a mashmelon (alternative cabbage head) my mother sent to me,
Well I’ve travelled this wide world over, ten thousand miles or more,
But a moustache on a mashmelon I never did see before.

## References

* Weavers - You Old Fool
* You Old Fool Lyrics

### Videos

These are videos, not all computers can run them but if you can run the links you can learn the tune.
* You Old Fool
* Four Nights Drunk
* Four Nights Drunk
* Wake Up Baby
# Four Meetings

* "Four Meetings" in Scribner's Monthly 15 (1) (November 1877): 44–56.
    — First publication in any form.
* "Four Meetings" in Daisy Miller: A Study, An International Episode, Four Meetings (2 volumes, London: Macmillan & Co., 1879) 2: 175–263.
    — First English book edition; two volumes; revised for publication by James.
* "Four Meetings" in Daisy Miller: A Study, An International Episode, Four Meetings (1 volume, London: Macmillan & Co., 1879): 317–380.
    — Reprint of the first English book edition in a single volume; title page gives year of publication as 1879, but it was actually published in January 1880.
* "Four Meetings" in Daisy Miller: A Study, An International Episode, Four Meetings (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879): ?–?.
    — First Continental book edition; Volume 1819 of Tauchnitz's "Collection of British Authors" series.
* "Four Meetings" in Daisy Miller, Four Meetings, Longstaff's Marriage, Benvolio (London: Macmillan & Co., 1883): 75–107.
    — Volume 13 of the "Collective Edition of 1883"; uses the first English book edition text.
* "Four Meetings" in The Author of Beltraffio, Pandora, Georgina's Reasons, The Path of Duty, Four Meetings (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1885): 319–362.
    — First American book edition; revised for publication by James.
* "Four Meetings" in The Novels and Tales of Henry James (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907–1909) 16: 267–312.
    — The "New York Edition" text; this is the last edition to be revised for publication by James.
* "Four Meetings" in Daisy Miller, An International Episode, Four Meetings (London: Thomas Nelson, 1918): 213–253.
    — A posthumous publication; uses the first English book edition text.
* "Four Meetings" in The Author of Beltraffio, The Middle Years, Greville Fane, and Other Tales (London: Macmillan, 1922): 235–275.
    — Volume 21 of The Novels and Stories of Henry James, the first posthumous collection of James' works; uses the "New York Edition" text.
# Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man/Front matter

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN
* PRINCIPLES of GEOLOGY; or, the Modern Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants, as illustrative of Geology. 9th Edition. Woodcuts, 8vo., 18s.
* ELEMENTS of GEOLOGY; or, the Ancient Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants, as illustrated by its Geological Monuments. 6th Edition, revised. Woodcuts. 8vo. [In Preparation.]
* A FIRST and SECOND VISIT to NORTH AMERICA, CANADA, NOVA SCOTIA, &c.: with Geological Observations. 2nd Edition. Maps. 4 vols. Post 8vo. 24s.
# Geneva Convention/Protocol II

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts. Entry into force: 7 December 1979, in accordance with Article 23.
See:
* Committee of the Red Cross: Full text of Protocol II with commentaries
* Full Source of Protocol II Reference site is Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
# Geneva Furniture Manufacturing Company v. S. Karpen & Brothers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
238 U.S. 254
Geneva Furniture Manufacturing Company v. S. Karpen & Brothers
Argued: December 17, 1914. --- Decided: June 14, 1915
Messrs. Thomas A. Banning and Samuel Walker Banning for appellant.
Messrs. Levy Mayer, Isaac H. Mayer, John H. Lee, and Philip C. Dyrenforth for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 255-256 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Geneva Convention

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Geneva Convention."
* 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.

### Four different treaties

* First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
* Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
* Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929 as the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, last revision in 1949) This is usually the document people are referring to when they speak of the Geneva Convention without reference to which one it is.
* Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

### Three additional protocols

* Protocol I "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" (adopted in 1977)
* Protocol II "relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts" (adopted in 1977)
* Protocol III "relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem" (adopted in 2005)
# Goodrich v. Edwards

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 527
Goodrich v. Edwards
Argued: March 10 and 11, 1921. --- Decided: March 28, 1921
Mr. William D. Guthrie, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 527-531 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 531-533 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# Goodrich Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 126
Goodrich Company v. United States
Argued: Jan. 3, 4, 1944. --- Decided: Jan 31, 1944
Mr. William H. Bemis, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. Valentine Brookers, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Goodrich v. Ferris

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 71
Goodrich v. Ferris
Argued: March 19, 22, 1909. --- Decided: May 17, 1909
Messrs. John G. Johnson, Tyson S. Dines, L. Sidney Carrere, and Henry Arden for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 71-72 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. J. W. Dorsey, Henry E. Davis, and Henry Ach for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 72-74 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Franks Bros Company v. National Labor Relations Board

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
321 U.S. 702
Franks Bros Company v. National Labor Relations Board
Argued: March 27, 1944. --- Decided: April 10, 1944
Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Alvin J. Rockwell, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# Fraser's Magazine

* related portals: Periodicals.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Editors included James Anthony Froude
* Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, December 1849 by Thomas Carlyle
* The Contest in America, 1862 by John Stuart Mill
* Who Lasts Wins, 1869 by Isabel Burton
* An argosy of fables/Russian fables, Kirilov's Fables
# Fraser v. Jennison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
106 U.S. 191
Fraser v. Jennison
H. M. Duffree and Edwards Pierrepont, for plaintiffs in error.
Wm. Jennison, for defendants in error.
WAITE, C. 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
# Gold-Mining Company v. National Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 640
Gold-Mining Company v. National Bank
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. M. Woolworth, contra.
Mr. JUSTICE HUNT 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
# Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes/Dissent Bradley

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Bradley
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 199
Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, dissenting.
The question intended to be raised in this case is, whether the grants made by the United States of placer mines, as such, involve the right to discharge the refuse earth and gravel produced by working said mines, called 'tailings,' into the neighboring streams, in this case Bear River, inasmuch as the mines cannot be worked except by means of a discharge of the streams of water loaded with such refuse. This question depends upon the construction of the titles given by the United States. When the government determined to sell mining property as such, and placer mines eo nomine, did it, or did it not, intend to confer a right of working them in the only way in which they could be worked? It seems to me that the question is clearly raised by the allegations of the petition in this case; and the claim of the right is clearly made. Whether it can be maintained as against the occupants of inferior lands in the valleys which may be injured thereby is another question, not now before us. I think the parties were entitled to a removal of the cause.
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
# Golan v. Holder/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States
565 U.S. ___
Lawrence Golan et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 10-545 Argued: October 5, 2011 --- Decided: January 18, 2012

## 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
# Golan v. Holder/Dissent Breyer

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States
565 U.S. ___
Lawrence Golan et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 10-545 Argued: October 5, 2011 --- Decided: January 18, 2012

## 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
# Golan v. Holder

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Breyer
Supreme Court of the United States
565 U.S. ___
Lawrence Golan et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 10-545 Argued: October 5, 2011 --- Decided: January 18, 2012

## Notes

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.
KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
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
# Golan v. Gonzales

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
A case challenging the constitutionality of restoring copyright of foreign works that were previously in the United States public domain by the United States Congress. The main argument was that restoring copyright violates the "limited times" clause of the United States Constitution. On September 4, 2007, the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court after finding that § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act "has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs' right to free expression" and therefore must be subject to First Amendment review.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
* 501 F.3d 1179
* LAWRENCE GOLAN; ESTATE OF RICHARD KAPP; S.A. PUBLISHING CO, IN C., d/b/a ESS.A.Y. RECORDINGS; SYMPHONY OF THE CANYONS; RON HALL d/b/a FESTIVAL FILMS; and JOHN McDONOUGH, d/b/a TIM ELESS VIDEO ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants
* v.
* ALBERTO R. GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; and MARYBETH PETERS, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, Defendants-Appellees
* No. 05-1259
* United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
* September 4, 2007
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 1:01-cv-01854 LTB-BNB)
Lawrence Lessig, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, Stanford California (Hugh Q. Gottschalk and Carolyn J. Fairless, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
John S. Koppel, Appellate Staff Civil Division (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, William J. Leone, United States Attorney, and William Kanter, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Washington, D.C., with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
Eric M. Lieberman and David B. Goldstein, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York, New York, filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________
Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
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
# Great Russia/Preface

​PREFACE
THE present volume is not a mere colleclection of disconnected articles, of disjecta membra, on the Russian Empire and on the Russian people. Rather is it an attempt to give a systematic and co-ordinated survey of Russian history and policy.
In the first part I have tried to analyse somewhat more consistently than has been done by previous authors how Russian history and Russian policy are rooted in definite geographical conditions.
In the second part I have tried to indicate the inappreciable debt which the world owes to the Russian people.
In the third part I have shown how the ideals of Russian culture have found adequate expression in the representative masters of Russian literature.
In the fourth part I have dealt with the two burning questions of Russian politics, the Polish problem and the Jewish problem.
In the paper on the abortive ​Revolutionary Movement of 1905 I have examined the difficulties which confronted Russian reformers. The paper was written ten years ago in Moscow under the direct impression of the tragic events of the Russian Annus Mirabilis. I have analysed the causes why the civil war of 1905 failed and was bound to fail, and I have suggested on what lines any future reforming movement is likely to succeed. I have not hesitated to reprint those pages, not only because I was repeatedly urged to do so by the late Count Tolstoy, not only because my forecasts were verified in every detail, but because those pages are still entirely applicable to the present situation. The difficulties which confronted the Russian Revolutionists in 1905, will still confront Russian Reformers in the political reorganization of to-morrow. The remedies which were demanded in 1905 are still urgently required to-day.
I am quite aware that within the narrow compass of 200 pages I have only been able to touch the fringe of a huge subject, but I shall have sufficiently attained my purpose if I have succeeded in stimulating some of my readers to think for themselves on those fascinating topics, and if I have succeeded in removing some ​of the most glaring British misconceptions of a wonderful people whose fortunes are henceforth closely bound up with our own, and who are destined after this war to be the dominant influence in World Politics.
The Hermitage, Jedburgh November, 1915
# Groeck v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
183 U.S. 690
Groeck v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Argued: and Submitted December 5, 6, 1901. --- Decided: January 13, 1902
This case resembles the one just decided in all its essential particulars, and is controlled by it.
The decrees of both courts are therefore reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of California, with directions to dismiss the bill.

## 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
# Grog

GROG.
Row, Brothers, Row.
ON A BANK OF FLOWERS.
Here's to the Soger wha bled.
Lovely Jean.
Glasgow—Printed for the Booksellers.
* Grog
* Row, Brothers, Row
* On a Bank of Flowers
* Here's to the Soger Wha Bled
* Lovely Jean
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