OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bully

See also Bullying on Wikipedia; bully on Wiktionary; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​BULLY (of uncertain origin, but possibly connected with a Teutonic word seen in many compounds, as the Low Ger. bullerjaan, meaning “noisy”; the word has also, with less probability, been derived from the Dutch boel, and Ger. Buhle, a lover), originally a fine, swaggering fellow, as in “Bully Bottom” in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, later an overbearing ruffian, especially a coward who abuses his strength by ill-treating the weak; more technically a souteneur, a man who lives on the earnings of a prostitute. The term in its early use of “fine” or “splendid” survives in American slang.
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bulrush

See also Typha on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​BULRUSH, a name now generally given to Typha latifolia, the reed-mace or club-rush, a plant growing in lakes, by edges of rivers and similar localities, with a creeping underground stem, narrow, nearly flat leaves, 3 to 6 ft. long, arranged in opposite rows, and a tall stem ending in a cylindrical spike, half to one foot long, of closely packed male (above) and female (below) flowers. The familiar brown spike is a dense mass of minute one-seeded fruits, each on a long hair-like stalk and covered with long downy hairs, which render the fruits very light and readily carried by the wind. The name bulrush is more correctly applied to Scirpus lacustris, a member of a different family (Cyperaceae), a common plant in wet places, with tall spongy, usually leafless stems, bearing a tuft of many-flowered spikelets. The stems are used for matting, &c. The bulrush of Scripture, associated with the hiding of Moses, was the Papyrus (q.v.), also a member of the order Cyperaceae, which was abundant in the Nile.
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bulstrode, Sir Richard

See also Richard Bulstrode on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​BULSTRODE, SIR RICHARD (1610–1711), English author and soldier, was a son of Edward Bulstrode (1588–1659), and was educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge; after studying law in London he joined the army of Charles I. on the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642. In 1673 he became a resident agent of Charles II. at Brussels; in 1675 he was knighted; then following James II. into exile he died at St Germain on the 3rd of October 1711. Bulstrode is chiefly known by his Memoirs and Reflections upon the Reign and Government of King Charles I. and King Charles II., published after his death in 1721. He also ​wrote Life of James II., and Original Letters written to the Earl of Arlington (1712). The latter consists principally of letters written from Brussels giving an account of the important events which took place in the Netherlands during 1674.
His second son, Whitelocke Bulstrode (1650–1724), remained in England after the flight of James II.; he held some official positions, and in 1717 wrote a pamphlet in support of George I. and the Hanoverian succession. He published A Discourse of Natural Philosophy, and was a prominent Protestant controversialist. He died in London on the 27th of November 1724.
# Hanna Mining Company v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Brennan
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 181
Hanna Mining Company v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association
Argued: Oct. 12, 1965. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1965
[Syllabus from pages 181-183 intentionally omitted]
John H. Hanninen, McCreary Hinslea & Ray, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners.
Lee Pressman, New York City, for respondents.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Hanna Mining Company v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association/Concurrence Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Brennan
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 181
Hanna Mining Company v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association
Argued: Oct. 12, 1965. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1965
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, concurring.
I agree with the Court that § 14(a) does not evince a congressional decision to exclude state regulation of picketing aimed at organizing supervisors and securing the employer's recognition of the union. The question here, however, is whether Congress has excluded state regulation when that picketing also has secondary aspects arguably within the reach of § 8(b)(4)(B). I agree with the Court that state regulation is likewise not precluded in such case.
The proviso to § 8(b)(4)(B) expressly states '(t)hat nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing.' (Emphasis supplied.) While Congress thus provided that primary picketing is not rendered unlawful under the Act merely by having secondary aspects, the italicized words of the proviso evince a congressional intention to leave undisturbed whatever other provisions of law regulate primary picketing. Ordinarily such regulation occurs under the National Labor Relations Act. The primary aspects of supervisory picketing are not, however, regulated by the federal Act; and I think the assumption that regulation will occur, which underlies the italicized words of the proviso is strong enough to support the Court's conclusion that state regulation of supervisory organizational picketing is not preempted.
It is true that we said in Garmon that States have no power to regulate 'activities' arguably subject to the federal Act; picketing which, because of its secondary aspects, is arguably subject to § 8(b)(4)(B) is, by one construction, an 'activity.' But Garmon was not a case in which only incidental aspects of picketing were arguably subject to federal power and in which the alternative to state regulation was a regulatory void which Congress plainly assumed would not exist. In this limited context, it is permissible to distinguish the primary from the secondary aspects of the picketing, and hold that the States may regulate the former, although preempted as to the latter, and although the necessary effect of regulation curbs both secondary and primary aspects of the picketing. This choice seems more consistent with the congressional meaning, since the alternative is to immunize the primary aspects of such common-situs picketing from state regulation, and that alternative finds no support either in policy or in the statute. Thus, I think that the Wisconsin courts may consider so much of the complaint as is addressed to the primary aspects of MEBA's picketing.

## 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
# Hanna v. Plumer/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Black Harlan
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 460
Hanna v. Plumer
Argued: Jan. 21, 1965. --- Decided: April 26, 1965
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the result.

## 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
# Hanna v. Mass

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
122 U.S. 24
Hanna v. Mass
E. J. Estep, for plaintiffs in error.
A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, W. H. Smith, and Dan H. Ball, for defendants in error.
GRAY, 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
# Hanna v. Plumer

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by what means federal courts are obliged to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The question in the instant case was whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing service of process should yield to state rules governing the service of process in diversity cases. The Court ruled that under the facts of this case, federal courts shall apply the federal rule. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinions

    Black
    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 460
Hanna v. Plumer
Argued: Jan. 21, 1965. --- Decided: April 26, 1965
Albert P. Zabin, Boston, Mass., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
James J. Fitzpatrick, Boston, Mass., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Charles IV. or III. (Duke of Lorraine)

See also Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CHARLES IV. or III. (1604–1675), duke of Lorraine, was a son of Duke Francis II., and was born on the 5th of April 1604. He became duke on the abdication of his father in 1624, and obtained the duchy of Bar through his marriage with his cousin Nicole (d. 1657), daughter of Duke Henry. Mixing in the tortuous politics of his time, he was in continual conflict with the crown of France, and spent much of his time in assisting her enemies and in losing and regaining his duchies (see Lorraine). He lived an adventurous life, and in the intervals between his several struggles with France fought for the emperor Ferdinand II. at Nordlingen and elsewhere; talked of succouring Charles I. in England; and after the conclusion of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 entered the service of Spain. He died on the 18th of September 1675, leaving by his second wife, Beatrix de Cusance (d. 1663), a son, Charles Henry, count of Vaudemont (1642–1723).
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Charles IX. (King of France)

See also Charles IX of France on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CHARLES IX. (1550–1574), king of France, was the third son of Henry II. and Catherine de’ Medici. At first he bore the title of duke of Orleans. He became king in 1560 by the death of his brother Francis II., but as he was only ten years old the power was in the hands of the queen-mother, Catherine. Charles seems to have been a youth of good parts, lively and agreeable, but he had a weak, passionate and fantastic nature. His education had spoiled him. He was left to his whims—even the strangest—and to his taste for violent exercises; and the excesses to which he gave himself up ruined his health. Proclaimed of age on the 17th of August 1563, he continued to be absorbed in his fantasies and his hunting, and submitted docilely to the authority of his mother. In 1570 he was married to Elizabeth of Austria, daughter of Maximilian II. It was about this time that he dreamed of making a figure in the world. The successes of his brother, the duke of Anjou, at Jarnac and Moncontour had already caused him some jealousy. When Coligny came to court, he received him very warmly, and seemed at first to accept the idea of an intervention in the Netherlands against the Spaniards. For the upshot of this adventure see the article St Bartholomew, Massacre of. Charles was in these circumstances no hypocrite, but weak, hesitating and ill-balanced. Moreover, the terrible events in which he had played a part transformed his character. He became melancholy, severe and taciturn. “It is feared,” said the Venetian ambassador, “that he may become cruel.” Undermined by fever, at the age of twenty he had the appearance of an old man, and night and day he was haunted with nightmares. He died on the 30th of May 1574. By his mistress, Marie Touchet, he had one son, Charles, duke of Angoulême. Charles IX. had a sincere love of letters, himself practised poetry, was the patron of Ronsard and the poets of the Pleiad, and granted privileges to the first academy founded by Antoine de Baïf (afterwards the Académie du Palais). He left a work on hunting, Traité de la chasse royale, which was published in 1625, and reprinted in 1859.
Authorities.—The principal sources are the contemporary memoirs and chronicles of T. A. d’Aubigné, Brantôme, Castelnau, Haton, la Place, Montluc, la Noue, l’Estoile, Ste Foy, de Thou, Tavannes, &c.; the published correspondence of Catherine de’ Medici, Marguerite de Valois, and the Venetian ambassadors; and Calendars of State Papers, &c. See also Abel Desjardins, Charles IX, deux années de règne (Paris, 1873); de la Ferrière, Le XVIe siècle et les Valois (Paris, 1879); H. Mariéjol, La Réforme et la Ligue (Paris, 1904), in vol. v. of the Histoire de France, by E. Lavisse, which contains a bibliography for the reign.
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Charles III. or II. (Duke of Lorraine)

See also Charles III, Duke of Lorraine on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CHARLES III. or II. (1543–1608), called The Great, duke of Lorraine, was a son of Duke Francis I. (d. 1545), and a descendant of René of Anjou. He was only an infant when he became duke, and was brought up at the court of Henry II. of France, marrying Henry’s daughter Claude in 1559. He took part in the wars of religion in France, and was a member of the League; but he was overshadowed by his kinsmen the Guises, although he was a possible candidate for the French crown in 1589. The duke, who was an excellent ruler of Lorraine, died at Nancy on the 14th of May 1608. He had three sons: Henry (d. 1624) and Francis (d. 1632), who became in turn dukes of Lorraine, and Charles (d. 1607), bishop of Metz and Strassburg.
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Charles III. (Roman Emperor)

See also Charles the Fat on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CHARLES III., the Fat (832–888), Roman emperor and king of the West Franks, was the youngest of the three sons of Louis the German, and received from his father the kingdom of Swabia (Alamannia). After the death of his two brothers in succession, Carloman (881) and Louis the Young (882), he inherited the whole of his father’s dominions. In 880 he had helped his two cousins in the west Frankish realm, Louis III. and Carloman, in their struggle with the usurper Boso of Provence, but abandoned them during the campaign in order to be crowned emperor at Rome by Pope John VIII. (February 881). On his return he led an expedition against the Norsemen of Friesland, who were entrenched in their camp at Elsloo, but instead of engaging with them he preferred to make terms and paid them tribute. In 884 the death of Carloman brought into his possession the west Frankish realm, and in 885 he got rid of his rival Hugh of Alsace, an illegitimate son of Lothair II., taking him prisoner by treachery and putting out his eyes. However, in spite of his six expeditions into Italy, he did not succeed in pacifying the country, nor in delivering it from the Saracens. He was equally unfortunate in Gaul and in Germany against the Norsemen, who in 886–887 besieged Paris. The emperor appeared before the city with a large army (October 886), but contented himself by treating with them, buying the retreat of the invaders at the price of a heavy ransom, and his permission for them to ravage Burgundy without his interfering. On his return to Alamannia, however, the general discontent showed itself openly and a conspiracy was formed against him. He was first forced to dismiss his favourite, the chancellor Liutward, bishop of Vercelli. The dissolution of his marriage with the pious empress Richarde, in spite of her innocence as proved by the judicial examination, alienated his nobles still more from him. He was deposed by an assembly which met at Frankfort or at Tribur (November 887), and died in poverty at Neidingen on the Danube (18th January 888).
See E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches vol. iii. (Leipzig 1888).
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Charles IV. (King of Spain)

See also Charles IV of Spain on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​CHARLES IV. (1748–1819), king of Spain, second son of Charles III. and his wife Maria Amelia of Saxony, was born at Portici on the 11th of November 1748, while his father was king of the Two Sicilies. The elder brother was set aside as imbecile and epileptic. Charles had inherited a great frame and immense physical strength from the Saxon line of his mother. When young he was fond of wrestling with the strongest countrymen he could find. In character he was not malignant, but he was intellectually torpid, and of a credulity which almost passes belief. His wife, Maria Luisa of Parma, his first cousin, a thoroughly coarse and vicious woman, ruled him completely, though he was capable of obstinacy at times. During his father’s lifetime he was led by her into court intrigues which aimed at driving the king’s favourite minister, Floridablanca, from office, and replacing him by Aranda, the chief of the “Aragonese” party. After he succeeded to the throne in 1788 his one serious occupation was hunting. Affairs were left to be directed by his wife and her lover Godoy (q.v.). For Godoy the king had an unaffected liking, and the lifelong favour he showed him is almost pathetic. When terrified by the French Revolution he turned to the Inquisition to help him against the party which would have carried the reforming policy of Charles III. much further. But he was too slothful to have more than a passive part in the direction of his own government. He simply obeyed the impulse given him by the queen and Godoy. If he ever knew his wife’s real character he thought it more consistent with his dignity to shut his eyes. For he had a profound belief in his divine right and the sanctity of his person. If he understood that his kingdom was treated as a mere dependence by France, he also thought it due to his “face” to make believe that he was a powerful monarch. Royalty never wore a more silly aspect than in the person of Charles IV., and it is highly credible that he never knew what his wife was, or what was the position of his kingdom. When he was told that his son Ferdinand was appealing to the emperor Napoleon against Godoy, he took the side of the favourite. When the populace rose at Aranjuez in 1808 he abdicated to save the minister. He took refuge in France, and when he and Ferdinand were both prisoners of Napoleon’s, he was with difficulty restrained from assaulting his son. Then he abdicated in favour of Napoleon, handing over his people like a herd of cattle. He accepted a pension from the French emperor and spent the rest of his life between his wife and Godoy. He died at Rome on the 20th of January 1819, probably without having once suspected that he had done anything unbecoming a king by divine right and a gentleman.
See Historia del Reinado de Carlos IV., by General Gomez de Arteche (3 vols.), in the Historia General de España de la Real Academia de la Historia (Madrid, 1892, &c.).
# Hunted Down

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Hunted Down."
* 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.
* Hunted Down, a novelette by Charles Dickens
* Hunted Down, a work by Dion Boucicault
# Hunt v. United States (289 U.S. 764)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 764
Hunt v. United States (289 U.S. 764)
Mr. William J. Byrne, of Washington, D. C., 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
# Hunt v. Western Casualty Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 530
Hunt v. Western Casualty Company
No. 91
Mr. E. C. Street, of Waco, Tex., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., of Chicago, Ill. (Messrs. Naman, Howell & Brooks, of Waco, Tex., of counsel), for respondent.
On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
For decision granting certiorari, see 293 U.S. 537, 55 S.C.t. 76, 79 L. Ed. --.
For opinion below, see 69 F.(2d) 129.
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
# Hunt v. United States (278 U.S. 96)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
278 U.S. 96
Hunt v. United States (278 U.S. 96)
Argued: Oct. 23, 1928. --- Decided: Nov 19, 1928
Messrs. Earl Anderson and John W. Murphy, both of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 97 intentionally omitted]
The Attorney General, Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 98 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
While, under the applicable law of Texas, the District Court was without authority in this suit to enforce an award of the Industrial Accident Board to afford a trial de novo (Vestal v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n (Tex. Com. App.) 285 S. W. 1041; Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Neal (Tex. Civ. App.) 11 S.W.(2d) 847; Neal v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 118 Tex. 236, 14 S.W.(2d) 793), the question of the true construction of the award was necessarily presented, and the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in reviewing the judgment of the District Court may be re garded as resting upon the determination of that question. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

## 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
# Hunt v. United States (289 U.S. 764)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 764
Hunt v. United States (289 U.S. 764)
The Attorney General, for the United States.
For opinion below, see 59 F.(2d) 1014.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims dismissed on motion of counsel for the 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
# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Des Essarts, Emmanuel Adolphe

See also Emmanuel des Essarts on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​DES ESSARTS, EMMANUEL ADOLPHE (1839–), French poet and man of letters, was born at Paris on the 5th of February 1839. His father, Alfred Stanislas Langlois des Essarts (d. 1893), was a poet and novelist of considerable reputation. The son was educated at the École Normale Supérieure, and became a teacher of rhetoric and finally professor of literature at Dijon and at Clermont. His works are: Poésies parisiennes (1862), a volume of light verse on trifling subjects; Les Élévations (1864), philosophical poems; Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au XVI $^e$ siècle (1873); Du génie de Chateaubriand (1876); Poèmes de la Révolution (1879); Pallas Athéné (1887); Portraits de maîtres (1888), &c.