OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North/Part 1

Layout 2
PART I.
THE OLD NORSE AND ICELANDIC LITERATURE.
PART I.
WORKS OF REFERENCE.
K. Weinhold: Altnordisches Leben. Berlin, 1856.
C. F. Koeppen: Literarische Einleitung in die nordische Mythologie. Berlin, 1837.
C. Rosenberg: Nordboernes Aandsliv fra Oldtiden til vore Dage. Copenhagen, 1877–78.
N. M. Petersen: Samlede Afhandlinger I–IV. Copenhagen, 1870–74.
P. A. Munch: Samlede Afhandlinger I–IV. Christiania, 1872–76.
R. Keyser: Efterladte Skrifter I–II. Christiania, 1866.
R. B. Anderson: Norse Mythology. Chicago, 1879.
R. B. Anderson: Viking Tales of the North. Chicago, 1882.
R. B. Anderson: The Younger Edda. Chicago, 1880.
R. B. Anderson: America not discovered by Columbus. Chicago, 1883.
P. A. Munch: Det norske Folks Historie I–VIII. Christiania, 1852–63.
J. E. Sars: Udsigt over den norske Historie I–II. Christiania, 1873–77.
N. M. Petersen: Danmarks Historie i Hedenold I–III. Copenhagen, 1854–55.
K. Hildebrand: Svenska Folket under Hednatiden. Stockholm.
A. M. Strinholm: Wikingzüge, Staatsverfassung und Sitten der alten Skandinaven, aus dem Schwedischen von E. F. Frisch. Hamburg, 1839–41.
K. Maurer: Island von seiner ersten Entdeckung bis zum Untergange des Freistaats. München, 1874.
H. Hildebrand: Livet på Island under Sagotiden. Stockholm, 1867.
C. Rosenberg: Træk af Livet på Island i Fristatstiden. Copenhagen, 1871.
P. E. K. Kålund: Bidrag til en historisk topografisk Beskrivelse af Island. Copenhagen, 1877–79.
Th. Möbius: Ueber die altnordische Sprache. Halle, 1872.
H. Einarsen: Historia literaria Islandiae. Copenhagen and Leipsic, 1786 (Sciagraphia his. lit. Islandiae. Copenhagen, 1777).
Th. Möbius: Catalogus librorum Islandicorum et Norvegicorum ætatis mediæ. Leipsic. 1856.
​Th. Möbius: Verzeichniss der auf dem Gebiete der altnordischen Sprache und Literatur von 1855 bis 1879 erschienenen Schriften. Leipsic, 1880.
F. E. C. Dietrich: Altnordisches Lesebuch. 1864.
E. Rosselet: Isländische Literatur (Algemeine Encyclopædie der Wissenschaften und Künste von Ersch und Gruber. 1855).
N. M. Petersen: Bidrag til den oldnordiske Literature Historie. Copenhagen, 1866.
R. Keyser: Nordmændenes Videnskabelighed og Literatur i Middelalderen. Christiania, 1866.
# History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North/Part 2

Layout 2
PART II.
DENMARK AND NORWAY.
PART II.
WORKS OF REFERENCE.
A. G. Rudelbach: Dänische Literatur und Sprache (Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopædie).
A. Strodtmann: Das geistige Leben in Dänemark. Berlin, 1873.
Marmier: Histoire de la Literature en Danemarc et en Swede. Paris, 1839.
W. and M. Howitt: The Literature and Romance of Norway and Europe. London, 1852.
N. M. Peterson: Bidrag til den danske Literaturs Historie, I-V. Copenhagen, 1853-61.
Nyerup og Rahbek: Bidrag til den danske Digtekuntsts Historie, I-VI. Copenhagen, 1800-28.
J. L. Heiberg: Udsigt over den danske skjönne Literatur. Copenhagen, 1831.
Fr. Winkel Horn: Den Danske Literaturs Historie. Copenhagen, 1879.
L. Diethrichsen: Laredigtet i Nordens poetiske Literatur. Stockholm, 1860.
L. Dietrichsen: Indledning i Studiet af Danmark's Literatur: vort Aarhundrede. Upsala, 1860.
Kr. Arentsen: Danske digtere i det syttende Aarhundrede. Copenhagen, 1864.
L. Dietrichsen: Omrids af den norske Literaturs Historie. Copenhagen, 1866-69.
P. Hansen: Nordiscke Digtere i vort Aarhundrede. Copenhagen, 1879.
Bibliotheca Danica, by Kr. Bruun. Copenhagen, 1872.
Worm. Lexikon over danske, norske og islandske lærde Mænd. I—III. Copenhagen, 1771-94.
R. Nyerup og J. E. Kraft: Almindeligt Literaturlexikon for Danmark, Norge og Island. Copenhagen, 1820.
T. H. Erslew: Almindeligt Forfatterlexikon for Danmark og Bilande (with Supplement), 1814-53, I-VI. Copenhagen, 1843-68.
J. E. Kraft: Norsk Forfatterlexikon, 1814-56. Christiania, 1863.
P. Botten Hansen: La Norvège litteraire. Christiania, 1868.
# Jacobs v. George

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
150 U.S. 415
Jacobs v. George
Wm. H. Barnes, for appellant.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.

## 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
# Jacobs v. George/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
150 U.S. 415
Jacobs v. George
Judgment in this case was rendered by the supreme court of the territory of Arizona, January 19, 1889, that the judgment of the court below under review by that court be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. 20 Pac. 183.
January 13, 1890, being one of the days of the next regular term of the court, an appeal was prayed to this court. The appeal was allowed January 14, 1890, conditioned on giving bond, and certain findings of the supreme court were filed that day. January 24, 1890, the required bond was approved and filed, and the record was filed here March 14, 1890, at October term, 1889. No citation was issued and served, nor has any appearance for appellee been entered, nor is any waiver of citation shown.
It must be regarded as settled that: (1) Where an appeal is allowed in open court, and perfected during the term at which the decree or judgment appealed from was rendered, no citation is necessary. (2) Where the appeal is allowed at the term of the decree or judgment, but not perfected until after the term, a citation is necessary to bring in the parties; but if the appeal be docketed here at our next ensuing term, or the record reaches the clerk's hands seasonably for that term, and legal excuse exists for lack of docketing, a citation may be issued, by leave of this court, although the time for taking the appeal has elapsed. (3) Where the appeal is allowed at a term subsequent to that of the decree or judgment, a citation is necessary, but may be issued properly returnable, even after the expiration of the time for taking the appeal, if the allowance of the appeal were before. (4) But a citation is one of the necessary elements of an appeal taken after the term, and if it is not issued and served before the end of the next ensuing term of this court, and not waived, the appeal becomes inoperative. Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U.S. 142, 6 Sup. Ct. 319; Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104, 9 Sup. Ct. 443; Evans v. Bank, 134 U.S. 330, 10 Sup. Ct. 493; Green v. Elbert, 137 U.S. 615, 11 Sup. Ct. 188.
Appeal 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
# Jacobs v. New York

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

## Dissenting Opinions

    Warren
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 431
Jacobs v. New York
Emile Z. Berman, for appellants.
Frank S. Hogan, for appellee.
Edward De Grazia and John R. Kramer, for the National Students Association, as amicus curiae.
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
# Jacobs v. New York/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Warren Douglas
United States Supreme Court
388 U.S. 431
Jacobs v. New York
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, 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
# Jacobs v. Prichard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
223 U.S. 200
Jacobs v. Prichard
Argued: December 8, 1911. --- Decided: February 19, 1912
Messrs. W. H. Doolittle, E. D. Wilcox, and Jesse Thomas for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 201-204 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Stanton Warburton, Overton G. Ellis, and John D. Fletcher for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 204-207 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice McKenna 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
# Iowa v. Slimmer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 115
Iowa v. Slimmer
Argued: April 15, 1918. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1918
Mr. H. M. Havner, of Des Moines, Iowa, for complainant.
[Argument of Counsel from 115-116 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Thomas D. O'Brien, of St. Paul, Minn., for defendants.
[Argument of Counsel from 116-117 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Iphigenia in Tauris

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Iphigenia in Tauris."
* 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.
* Iphigenia in Tauris, a play by Euripides. Multiple English translations exist.
* Iphigenia in Tauris, a play by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1779)
* "Iphigenia in Tauris," in The Encyclopedia Americana, New York: The Encyclopedia Americana Corporation (1920)

## See also

Several other non-English plays and operas with this title are described on Wikipedia:
* Iphigénie en Tauride, a 1704 French opera by Henri Desmarets and André Campra.
* Iphigénie en Tauride, a 1757 French play by Claude Guimond de La Touche.
* Iphigénie en Tauride, a 1779 French opera by Christoph Willibald Gluck; libretto by Nicolas-François Guillard.
    A revised German version was written and performed in 1781, with libretto translated and adapted by Johann Baptist von Alxinger.
* Iphigénie en Tauride, a 1781 French opera by Niccolò Piccinni; libretto by Alphonse du Congé Dubreuil.
# Iran Freedom Support Act

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

### Section 1. Short Title.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Iran Freedom Support Act´´.

### Sec. 2. Table of Contents.

    (a) Table of Contents.—
       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
          Sec. 1. Short Title.
          Sec. 2. Table of Contents.

##### Title I — Codification of Sanctions Against Iran.

             Sec. 101. Codification of Sanctions.

##### Title II — Amendments to the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and Other Provisions Related to Investment in Iran.

             Sec. 201. Multilateral Regime.
             Sec. 202. Imposition of Sanctions.
             Sec. 203. Termination of Sanctions.
             Sec. 204. Sunset.
             Sec. 205. Technical and Conforming Amendments.

##### Title III — Promotion of Democracy for Iran.

             Sec. 301. Declaration of Policy.
             Sec. 302. Assistance to Support Democracy for Iran.

##### Title IV — Policy of the United States to Facilitate the Nuclear Nonproliferation of Iran.

             Sec. 401. Sense of Congress.

##### Title V — Prevention of Money Laundering for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

             Sec. 501. Prevention of Money Laundering for Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Approved September 30, 2006.

## Legislative History

* H.R. 6198
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
   ** Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
   ** Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Iran Freedom Support Act/Title I
## TITLE I — CODIFICATION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN
### Sec. 101. Codification of Sanctions.

    (a) Codification of Sanctions.—
       Except as otherwise provided in this section, United States sanctions with respect to Iran imposed pursuant to sections 1 and 3 of Executive Order No. 12957, sections 1(e), (1)(g), and (3) of Executive Order No. 12959, and sections 2, 3, and 5 of Executive Order No. 13059 (relating to exports and certain other transactions with Iran) as in effect on January 1, 2006, shall remain in effect. The President may terminate such sanctions, in whole or in part, if the President notifies Congress at least 15 days in advance of such termination. In the event of exigent circumstances, the President may exercise the authority set forth in the preceding sentence without regard to the notification requirement stated therein, except that such notification shall be provided as early as practicable, but in no event later than three working days after such exercise of authority.
    (b) No Effect on Other Sanctions Relating to Support for Acts of International Terrorism.—
       Nothing in this Act shall affect any United States sanction, control, or regulation as in effect on January 1, 2006, relating to a determination under section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)), section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)), or section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)) that the Government of Iran has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.
# Iphigenia in Aulis

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Iphigenia in Aulis."
* 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.
* Iphigenia in Aulis, a play by Euripides. Multiple English translations exist.
* "Iphigenia in Aulis," in The Encyclopedia Americana, New York: The Encyclopedia Americana Corporation (1920)

## See also

Several other non-English plays and operas with this title are described on Wikipedia:
* Iphigénie en Aulide, a 1774 French opera by Christoph Willibald Gluck; libretto by François-Louis Gand Le Bland Du Roullet.
# Iphigenia in Aulis (Euripides)

* related portals: Ancient Greek drama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Ἰφιγένεια ἐν Αὐλίδι (Iphigeneia en Aulidi, Latin: Iphigenia in Aulide) is a tragedy by Euripides. Events in the play relate to those of his Iphigenia in Tauris, but the author did not adhere to consistency among characters or events.
English-language translations of Ἰφιγένεια ἐν Αὐλίδι include:
* Iphigenia in Aulis, translated by Robert Potter (1781, 1783) 1st ed.
* Iphigenia in Aulis, translated by T. A. Buckley (1858)
* Iphigenia at Aulis, translated from the Paley text by E. P. Coleridge in The Plays of Euripides (1891) 1913 printing
* Iphigeneia at Aulis, translated by Arthur S. Way in The Tragedies of Euripides, in English verse (1898)
This work is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations of this work may be copyrighted.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Iphigenia in Tauris (Euripides)

* related portals: Ancient Greek drama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Ἰφιγένεια ἐν Ταύροις (Iphigeneia en Taurois, Latin: Iphigenia in Tauris) is a tragedy by Euripides. Events in the play occur later than those of his Iphigenia at Aulis, Electra, and Orestes, but the author did not adhere to consistency among characters or events.
English-language translations of Ἰφιγένεια ἐν Ταύροις include:
* Iphigenia in Tauris, translated by Robert Potter (1781, 1783) 1st ed.
* Iphigenia in Tauris, translated by T. A. Buckley (1858)
* Iphigenia among the Tauri, translated from the Paley text by E. P. Coleridge in The Plays of Euripides (1891) 1913 printing
* Iphigeneia in Taurica, translated by Arthur S. Way in The Tragedies of Euripides, in English verse (1898)
* The Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides, translated by Gilbert Murray (1910)
This work is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations of this work may be copyrighted.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Iran

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Iran."
* 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.
* "Iran," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Iran," in The World Factbook, (ed.) by CIA (1982)
* "Iran," in CIA World Fact Book, (ed.) by CIA (2004)

## See also

* Portal:Iran
# Jenkins v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 445
Jenkins v. United States
Argued: April 1, 1965. --- Decided: April 5, 1965
H. Thomas Sisk, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Philip B. Heymann, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 52
Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome
The judgment in this case is for $7,275.16, but it appears affirmatively on the face of the record that of this amount $2,669.03 was not disputed below. The defense related alone to the difference between these two amounts, which is less than $5,000. The dispute here is only in reference to the amount contested below. Such being the case, we have no jurisdiction. The case of Gray v. Blancard, 97 U.S. 564; Tintsman v. Nat. Bank, 100 U.S. 6; and Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. --, [S.C.. 2 SUP. CT. REP. 424,] are conclusive to this effect. 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
# Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 52
Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome
Harrison Geer and W. B. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
H. M. Duffield, for defendant 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
# Jenkins v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 445
Jenkins v. United States
Argued: April 1, 1965. --- Decided: April 5, 1965
Petitioner was charged in a two-count indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with robbing a High's Dairy Products store on December 27, 1962 (count 1), and with assault with intent to rob upon the proprietress of a grocery store on January 24, 1963 (count 2), in violation of §§ 22 2901 and 22-501, respectively, of the District of Columbia Code. Following a trial by jury, he was found guilty on count 1 and not guilty on count 2. He was sentenced to imprisonment for from 3 to 10 years. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 330 F.2d 220. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, four judges dissenting.
Slightly more than two hours after the jury retired to deliberate, the jury sent a note to the trial judge advising that it had been unable to agree upon a verdict 'on both counts because of insufficient evidence.' The judge thereupon recalled the jury to the courtroom and in the course of his response stated that 'You have got to reach a decision in this case.' We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 944, 85 S.Ct. 442, 13 L.Ed.2d 542, to consider whether in its context and under all the circumstances of this case the statement was coercive. The Solicitor General in his brief in this Court stated:
'Of course, if this Court should conclude that the judge's statement had the coercive effect attributed to it, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial; the principle that jurors may not be coerced into surrendering views conscientiously held is so clear as to require no elaboration.'
Upon review of the record, we conclude that in its context and under all the circumstances the judge's statement had the coercive effect attributed to it. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Cf. Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 450, 47 S.Ct. 135, 136, 71 L.Ed. 345; Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 307 308, 25 S.Ct. 243, 250, 49 L.Ed. 482; United States v. Rogers, 289 F.2d 433, 435 (C.A.4th Cir.)
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN dissent.

## 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