OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ross v. M'Lung

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 283
Ross v. M'Lung
ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the district of East Tennessee.
This was an action of ejectment instituted in the circuit court by the plaintiff in error, for the recovery of five thousand acres of land, situate in the district of East Tennessee.
On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court in rejecting certain evidence offered by him in support of his title from the original grantor, Stockley Donelson, holding under a patent from the state of North Carolina. The court refused to admit the deed of conveyance to the plaintiff, on the ground that the same was not registered according to the provisions of the law.
The bill of exceptions, containing the matters offered in evidence and rejected by the court, is stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. Polk, for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr White, for the defendant.
For the plaintiff it was contended, that the circuit court erred:
1. In not permitting the deed of conveyance from Stockley Donelson and John Hackett to David Ross, the lessor of the plaintiff, to be read to the jury, on the certificates of probate and registration indorsed on said deed.
2. In not permitting parol testimony to be given to the jury, to prove that said deed of conveyance had been duly proven in the court of pleas, &c. for Hawkins county, according to the provisions of the law of that state.
3. In not permitting said deed to be read in evidence, without either certificate of probate or parol evidence of its having been duly proven; as it had been on record in the register's office for more than thirty years.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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
# Schneider v. Rusk (372 U.S. 224)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 224
Schneider v. Rusk
Argued: Feb. 18, 1963. ---
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
# Schneider v. New Jersey

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals (Schneider v. State of New Jersey (Town of Irvington), Young v. People of the State of California, Snyder v. City of Milwaukee, Nichols et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts), each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
308 U.S. 147
Schneider v. New Jersey
No. 11. Argued: and Submitted October 13-16, 1939. --- Decided: November 22, 1939.
[Syllabus from pages 147-149 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph F. Rutherford and Olin R. Moyle both of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert I. Morris, of Newark, N.J., for respondent.

## 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
# Schneider v. Rusk

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Schneider v. Rusk."
* 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.
* Schneider v. Rusk (372 U.S. 224)
* Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163)
# Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which invalidated a law that treated naturalized and native-born citizens differentially under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 163
Schneider v. Rusk
Argued: April 2, 1964. --- Decided: May 18, 1964
Milton V. Freeman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
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
# Schneider Granite Company v. Gast Realty & Investment Company Gast Realty & Investment Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
245 U.S. 288
Schneider Granite Company v. Gast Realty & Investment Company Gast Realty & Investment Company
Argued: Oct. 11 and 12, 1917. --- Decided: Dec 10, 1917
Messrs. Hickman P. Rodgers and William K. Koerner, both of St. Louis, Mo., for Schneider Granite Co.
Messrs. Thomas P. Rutledge, David Goldsmith, and Robert A. Holland, Jr., all of St. Louis, Mo., for Gast Realty & Investment Co. and another.
Mr. Justice PITNEY 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
# Schneider v. Rusk (372 U.S. 224)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 224
Schneider v. Rusk
Argued: Feb. 18, 1963. ---
Trial of this case should have been before a three-judge District Court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282, 2284, as petitioner requested. Her complaint explicitly sought an 'injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of * * * (an) Act of Congress'-s 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1484(a)(1), which provides that a naturalized American citizen shall lose his nationality by 'having a continuous residence for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated * * *.' The District Court concluded that petitioner's complaint presented no substantial constitutional issue and denied petitioner's motion to convene a three-judge court, relying on Lapides v. Clark, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 176 F.2d 619 (1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 860, 70 S.Ct. 101, 94 L.Ed. 527, in which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had directly upheld the predecessor of a companion provision, § 352(a)(2) of the 1952 Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1484(a)(2), which deprived the naturalized American of his citizenship for residing for five years in any foreign state. The Court of Appeals' per curiam affirmance was also based on Lapides. Although no view is here intimated as to the merits of the constitutional question in the present case, we disagree with the conclusion of the courts below as to the substantiality of that issue. The intervening decisions of this Court in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S.Ct. 568, 2 L.Ed.2d 603, and Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 596, reveal that the constitutional questions involving deprivation of nationality which were presented to the district judge were not plainly insubstantial. The single-judge District Court was therefore powerless to dismiss the action on the merits, and should have convened a three-judge court. Ex parte Northern Pac. R. Co., 280 U.S. 142, 144, 50 S.Ct. 70, 74 L.Ed. 233; Stratton v. St. Louis S.W.R. Co., 282 U.S. 10, 15, 51 S.Ct. 8, 10, 75 L.Ed. 135; Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.Ed. 152; Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794. The judgments below are vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for expeditious action consistent with the views here expressed.
So ordered.

## 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
# Ryan v. Thomas/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 603
Ryan v. Thomas
We have no jurisdiction of the judgments of State courts except under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, and, upon examining the record, we do not find that the case presented is within any clause of it.
The suit in the State court was for the recovery of a tract of land in St. Louis, Missouri. The proofs of the plaintiff consisted of a patent of the United States to one Johnson, dated January 5th, 1843; a certificate of entry by Johnson, issued by the register of the St. Louis Land Office, on the 19th of August, 1829; an assignment of the same date by Johnson and the plaintiff, indorsed upon the certificate, and a decree, upon default, of the St. Louis Land Court, in a suit by the plaintiff against Johnson, adjudging and decreeing the title to be vested in the possessor.
The defence rested upon the ground that Johnson was a fictitious person, but the court held the patent not void, if issued to a real person and transferred by his indorsement to the plaintiff, though such person in making the entry and obtaining the certificate used a fictitious name.
The patent offered by the plaintiffs seems to have been the only authority under the United States drawn in question in the State court, and the decision was in favor of its validity. It is only when, in such a case, the decision is against the authority that this court has revisory jurisdiction.
It is suggested, in the brief for the plaintiff in error, that a subsequent patent was relied on by him when defendant in the State court, and that the decision having been against that patent may be reviewed here. But we find no such patent and no such decision in the record.
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
# Ryan v. United States (260 U.S. 90)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 90
Ryan v. United States (260 U.S. 90)
Argued: Oct. 16, 1922. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1922
Messrs. Wm. E. Russell, of New York City, and L. T. Michener, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Lovett, for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT 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
# Ryan v. Newfield/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 729
Ryan v. Newfield
For opinion below, see 91 F.(2d) 700.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Rehearing denied 302 U.S. 777, 58 S.Ct. 138, 82 L.Ed. --; Second rehearing denied 302 U.S. 650, 58 S.Ct. 262, 82 L.Ed. --.

## 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
# Ryan v. Newfield

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 729
Ryan v. Newfield
Mr. W. K. Zewadski, of Tampa, Fla., 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
# Ryan v. Thomas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
71 U.S. 603
Ryan v. Thomas
THOMAS brought suit against Ryan, in the St. Louis Land Court, an inferior State court of Missouri, for a tract of land in that State. The only question was as to the validity of a patent granted by the United States to a fictitious person. The inferior court held that the patent was valid; but the Supreme Court of the State, in 1857, reversed the judgment, and held that the patent to a fictitious person was a nullity. The case having been tried again in the inferior court, was again, in 1860, before the Supreme Court of the State, and it being proved that the supposed fictitious person was simply a false name assumed by an actual person, that court held that, although a patent issued to a person not in existence was a nullity, yet that a patent to a person under an assumed name was not void; and if such person should, under such assumed name, transfer the land to a purchaser, the title would enure to the latter; and they again reversed the judgment of the Land Court. The case was a third time tried in the inferior court, and, in 1864, a third time reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of that court, and declared that no new point was presented. Ryan now brought the case by writ of error here, conceiving, apparently, that this court had jurisdiction under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, which authorizes a final a judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of law or equity of a State to be brought here on error in point of law, provided the validity of a statute of or an authority exercised under the United States is drawn in question in the State court, and the decision is against that validity.
Mr. Coffey, for the defendant in error, moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, there being, as he argued, no question which, under the Judiciary Act, could give this court appellate jurisdiction of the case.
Mr. Blair, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE 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
# Ryan v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Ryan v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Ryan v. United States (86 U.S. 514)
* Ryan v. United States (136 U.S. 68)
* Ryan v. United States (260 U.S. 90)
* Ryan v. United States (379 U.S. 61)
See also United States v. Ryan.
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 3/The Shih/Lessons from the States/Book 10/Ode 8

Bǎo Yǔ (鴇羽) corresponds to "the feathers of the wild geese" in the first line.
Ode 8, Stanza 1. The Pâo Yü.
The men of Zin, called out to warfare by the king's order, mourn over the consequent suffering of their parents, and long for their return to their ordinary agricultural pursuits, making their appeal to Heaven.
Sû-sû go the feathers of the wild geese, As ​they settle on the bushy oaks. The king's affairs must not be slackly discharged, And (so) we cannot plant our millets;— What will our parents have to rely on? O thou distant and azure Heaven! When shall we be in our places again?
* ↑ Trees are not the proper place for geese to rest on; and the attempt to do so is productive of much noise and trouble to the birds. The lines would seem to allude to the hardships of the soldiers' lot, called from their homes to go on a distant expedition.
* ↑ See note 2 on ode 1 of Book vi, where Heaven is appealed to in the same language.
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 3/The Shih

The table of contents is found at the front of Vol. III. For other translations and more information, see Classic of Poetry. Many citations in this volume can be found in The Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, but not this revised and abridged edition, and the numbering is retained from that edition despite being out of order here.
THE SHIH KING
OR
BOOK OF POETRY:
ALL THE PIECES AND STANZAS IN IT ILLUSTRATING
THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS AND PRACTICES OF
THE WRITERS AND THEIR TIMES.
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 3/The Shih/Lessons from the States

LESSONS FROM THE STATES.
It has been stated in the Introduction, p. 276, that the first Part of the Shih, called the Kwo Făng, or 'Lessons from the States,' consists of 160 pieces, descriptive of manners and events in several of the feudal states into which the kingdom of Kâu was divided. Nearly all of them are short; and the passages illustrating the religious views and practices of their times are comparatively few. What passages there are, however, of this nature will all be found below. The pieces are not arranged in decades, as in the Odes of the Kingdom, but in Books, under the names of the states in which they were produced.
Although the Kwo Făng form, as usually published, the first Part of the Shih, nearly all of them are more recent in their origin than the pieces of the other Parts. They bring us face to face with the states of the kingdom, and the ways of their officers and people for several centuries of the dynasty of Kâu.
    Book II: The Odes of Shâo and the South
       Ode 2: The Zhâi Fan
       Ode 4: The Zhâi Pin
    Book III: The Odes of Phei
       Ode 4: The Zăh Yüeh
       Ode 15: The Pei Măn, Stanza 1
    Book IV: The Odes of Yung
       Ode 1: The Pai Kâu
       Ode 3: The Kün-zze Kieh Lâo, Stanza 2
       Ode 6: The Ting kih fang Kung, Stanzas 1 and 2
    Book V: The Odes of Wei
       Ode 4: The Măng, Stanzas 1 and 2
    Book VI: The Odes of the Royal Domain
       Ode 1: The Shû Lî, Stanza 1
       Ode 9: The Tâ Kü, Stanzas 1 and 3
    Book X: The Odes of Thang
       Ode 8: The Pâo Yû, Stanza 1
       Ode 11: The Ko Shăng
    Book XI: The Odes of Khin
       Ode 6: The Hwang Niâo, Stanza 1
    Book XV: The Odes of Pin
       Ode 1: The Khî Yüeh, Stanza 8
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 3/The Shih/Lessons from the States/Book 10

Book X. The Odes of Thang.
The odes of Thang were really the odes of Zin, the greatest of the fiefs of Kâu until the rise of Khin. King Khăng, in B.C. 1107, invested his younger brother, called Shû-yü, with the territory where Yâo was supposed to have ruled anciently as the marquis of Thang, in the present department of Thâi-yüan, Shan-hsî, the fief retaining that ancient name. Subsequently the name of the state was changed to Zin, from the river Zin in the southern part of it.
# Sacred Books of the East/Volume 3/The Shih/Lessons from the States/Book 10/Ode 11

Gé Shēng (葛生) corresponds to "The dolichos grows" in the first line.
Ode 11. The Ko Shăng.
A wife mourns the death of her husband, refusing to be comforted, and declares that she will cherish his memory till her own death.
It is supposed that the husband whose death is bewailed in this piece had died in one of the military expeditions of which duke Hsien (B.C. 676–651) was fond. It may have been so, but there is nothing in the piece to make us think of duke Hsien. I give it a place in the volume, not because of the religious sentiment in it, but because of the absence of that sentiment, where we might expect it. The lady shows the grand virtue of a Chinese widow, in that she will never marry again. And her grief would not be assuaged. The days would all seem long summer days, and the nights all long winter nights; so that a hundred long years would seem to drag their slow course. But there is not any hope expressed of a re-union with her husband in another state. The 'abode' and the 'chamber' of which she speaks are to be understood of his grave; and her thoughts do not appear to go beyond it.
The dolichos grows, covering the thorn trees; The convolvulus spreads all over the waste. The ​man of my admiration is no more here;— With whom can I dwell? I abide alone.
The dolichos grows, covering the jujube trees; The convolvulus spreads all over the tombs. The man of my admiration is no more here;— With whom can I dwell? I rest alone.
How beautiful was the pillow of horn! How splendid was the embroidered coverlet! The man of my admiration is no more here;— With whom can I dwell? Alone (I wait for) the morning.
Through the (long) days of summer, Through the (long) nights of winter (shall I be alone), Till the lapse of a hundred years, When I shall go home to his abode.
Through the (long) nights of winter, Through the (long) days of summer (shall I be alone), Till the lapse of a hundred years, When I shall go home to his chamber.
* ↑ These two lines are taken as allusive, the speaker being led by the sight of the weak plants supported by the trees, shrubs, and tombs, to think of her own desolate, unsupported condition. But they may also be taken as narrative, and descriptive of the battleground, where her husband had met his death.
* ↑ These things had been ornaments of the bridal chamber; and as the widow thinks of them, her grief becomes more intense.
# Royal Naval Biography/Raigersfeld, Jeffery

Layout 2
JEFFERY RAIGERSFELD, Esq [Post-Captain of 1802.]
This officer is descended from a noble German family. He obtained post rank April 29, 1802; and married, about the same period, a daughter of the Rev. Peter Hawker, Rector of Woodchester, and of Hampnett, co. Gloucester.
# Royal Naval Biography/Rains, Stephen

Layout 2
STEPHEN RAINS, Esq [Post-Captain of 1802.]
This officer commanded the King George cutter, attached to Admiral Duncan’s fleet in the battle off Camperdown, Oct. 11, 1797. He. obtained the rank of Post-Captain April 29, 1802; and was employed during the late war as a resident agent of transports. He died Feb. 1, 1824, in his 59th year.
# Royal Naval Biography/Ramage, William

Layout 2
WILLIAM RAMAGE, Esq. [Post-Captain of 1817.]
Was originally before the mast. We first find him serving on board the Iris frigate. Captain George Lumsdaine, in May, 1793. He obtained a commission. Mar. 14, 1799; and subsequently served as signal and flag-lieutenant to Earl St. Vincent. His promotion to the rank of commander took place Mar. 23, 1807; and he was posted, while commanding the Cherokee brig, Jan. 1, 1817. He died in Jan. 1828.
# Royal Naval Biography/Ramsey, Samuel

Layout 2
SAMUEL RAMSEY, Esq. [Commander.]
Was made a lieutenant on the 11th July, 1811; and appointed to the Tigre 74, Captain John Halliday (now Vice-Admiral Tollemache), on the Channel station, Nov. 21st following. We next find him serving under the late Hon. Sir Robert C. Spencer, in the Carron 20, at the attack of Fort Bowyer, in West Florida, Sept. 15th, 1814. He obtained his present rank on the 22d Aug. 1828.