OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# James v. United States (366 U.S. 213)/Concurrence-dissent Clark

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurrence/Dissents Black Clark Harlan Whittaker
Mr. Justice CLARK, concurring in part and dissenting in part as to the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Although I join in the specific overruling of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wilcox, 1946, 327 U.S. 404, 66 S.Ct. 546, 90 L.Ed. 752, in The Chief Justice's opinion, I would affirm this conviction on either of two grounds. I believe that the Court not only devitalized Wilcox, by limiting it to its facts in Rutkin v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 130, 72 S.Ct. 571, 96 L.Ed. 833, but that in effect the Court overruled that case sub silentio in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 1955, 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483. Even if that not be true, in my view the proof shows conclusively that petitioner, in willfully failing to correctly report his income, placed no bona fide reliance on Wilcox.
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
# Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W. S. Ranch Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
391 U.S. 593
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W.S. Ranch Co.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 1328 Argued: N/A --- Decided: June 3, 1968
The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to stay its action in this diversity case, as the crucial state law issue involved is of vital concern, is truly novel, will have to be resolved eventually in the New Mexico courts, and a declaratory judgment action is actually pending there.
Certiorari granted; 388 F. 2d 257 and 262, reversed and remanded.
J.R. Modral for petitioner.
William R. Federici for respondent.
Boston E. Witt, Attorney General, and F. Harlan Flint, Special Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of New Mexico on the relation of the New Mexico State Engineer, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
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
# Kaiser Wilhelm's Address to Queen Victoria

Given in August 1889, while visiting England. Queen Victoria was Wilhelm II's grandmother. Translated in 1904 by Dr. Louis Elkind, for his book "The German Emperor's Speeches" published by Longman Publishing.
I beg to express my sincerest thanks that your Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept the position of honorary Colonel of the Royal Prussian Regiment of the 1st Dragoon Guards. My Army is proud of the fact that, by means of this appointment, it is allowed to number among its officers the Ruler of the greatest naval power in the world. Above all, however, the hearts of the officers and men of your Majesty's regiment beat more proudly at the thought that they belong to a regiment which has the honour of being called The Queen of England's Own.
One reason why I have selected this regiment is because in the course of its history it has won well-earned laurels by its discipline in time of peace and by its heroic conduct in war, this being particularly the case in the last campaign at Mars-la-Tour. A second reason is because it is the only cavalry regiment in the Prussian Army in which my lamented father underwent his training as a cavalry officer.
I do not for one moment doubt that the officers and men of the Prussian Regiment of the 1st Dragoon Guards, The Queen of England's Own, are conscious of the high honour which has been bestowed upon them, and that they will at all times make every effort to continue to be worthy of it.
# Kail v. Wetmore Same/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
73 U.S. 451
Kail v. Wetmore Same
The judgment was rendered on the 10th of November, 1867. The writ of error was sued out the 19th, returnable the first day of the next term, which was the 2d day of December, a supersedeas bond given on the 29th of the same month, which was in time, excluding Sunday. The case thus far is within the cases of Villabolos v. United States, and United States v. Curry, except the signing and service of the citation.
But the decisive objections to the regularity of the proceedings are as it respects the description of the parties. There are but three persons plaintiffs in error. In one of the cases the citation contains four. In the other the names in the citation are altogether different from those in the writ of error, and the bond given in each case to stay the execution misdescribes the parties to the judgment, reciting but one person as plaintiff in error, when there are three. The numerous errors in the proceedings are remarkable, and for which both cases must be
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
# Kresge Company v. Bowers/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 466
Kresge Company v. Bowers
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

## 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
# Kress-Ahnenerbe correspondence

* Bruno Kress,
* 76 804 Ramsey,
* Camp L, c/o Chief Postal Censor Isle of Man
* Liverpool
Dear Ahnenerbe, although it has no practical sense, since your work may cease during the war and I am held in a prisoner-of-war camp in England, I wanted to send a message to you.
I hope my letter reaches you and you can write a few words in return.
I have been in different camps and anytime when possible I continued my work on Icelandic grammar. Now I am nearly done and the completition won’t take much time, but I’m not able to finish my work with the limited possibilities here and my isolation from the living language.
On the other hand, the forced leisure of my imprisonment gives me an opportunity to study the examples of the written language down to the last detail. In this way I hope to validate all my work, once the war is over.
I also use the manuscript to teach some of my comrades, who were also deported from Iceland, thus providing myself with additional details.
If I had a typewriter with Icelandic letters I could make some copies, and deposit one with the Red Cross and maybe another with my family in Reykjavik, where the first part already is, which I had copied before my deportation.
My current camp is bearable, at least I can work here during the summer. My letters are limited to 24 lines. With best wishes and optimism.
       Bruno Kress

## Annotations

* ↑ Ramsey Camp, on the Isle of Man
# Krichman v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
256 U.S. 363
Krichman v. United States
Argued: March 23, 1921. --- Decided: May 16, 1921
Mr. Edward Schoen, of Newark, N. J., for petitioner.
Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice DAY 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
# Krementz v. S. Cottle Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
148 U.S. 556
Krementz v. S.C.ottle Company
C. E. Mitchell and Louis C. Raegener, for appellant.
Edwin H. Brown, for appellee.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS 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
# Kresge Company v. Bowers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
365 U.S. 466
Kresge Company v. Bowers
Carlton S. Dargusch and Carlton S. Dargusch, Jr., for appellant.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Joseph D. Karam and Robert J. Kosydar, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
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
# Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 190
Wassil A. KRESHIK v. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL.
Argued: June 6, 1960. ---
The motion for leave to proceed upon the record in No. 3, October Term 1952, and the petition for certiorari, are granted.
In a prior decision in this litigation, we held that the right conferred under canon law upon the Archbishop of the North American Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, as the appointee of the Patriarch of Moscow, to the use and occupancy of the St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York City, owned by respondent corporation, was 'strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government,' and as such could not constitutionally be impaired by a state statute, New York Religious Corporations Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 51, Art. 5-C, purporting to bestow that right on another. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120. We reversed a judgment of the New York Court of Appeals against the petitioners' predecessors in office, and remanded the case for 'further action * * * not in contravention' of our opinion. Id., 344 U.S. at page 121, 73 S.Ct. at page 157.
The Court of Appeals ordered a retrial of the question of petitioners' right to use and occupancy, on a common-law issue assertedly left open by our invalidation of the statutory basis for the former decision. 306 N.Y. 38, 114 N.E.2d 197. After trial, the Court of Appeals directed the entry of judgment against petitioners, holding that, by reason of the domination-so found by that court to be the fact-of the Patriarch by the secular authority in the U.S.S.R., his appointee could not under the common law of New York validly exercise the right to occupy the Cathedral. 7 N.Y.2d 191, 196 N.Y.S.2d 655, 164 N.E.2d 687.
As the opinions of the Court of Appeals make evident, compare 302 N.Y. 1, at pages 29-33, 96 N.E.2d 56, at pages 72-74, with 7 N.Y.2d at pages 209-216, 196 N.Y.S.2d at pages 667-673, 164 N.E.2d at pages 696-700, the decision now under review rests on the same premises which were found to have underlain the enactment of the statute struck down in Kedroff. 344 U.S. at pages 117-118, 73 S.Ct. at page 155. But it is established doctrine that '(i)t is not of moment that the State has here acted solely through its judicial branch, for whether legislative or judicial, it is still the application of state power which we are asked to scrutinize.' N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463, 78 S.Ct. 116o, 1172, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 14-16, 68 S.Ct. 836, 842-843, 92 L.Ed. 1161, and cases there cited. Accordingly, our ruling in Kedroff is controlling here, and requires dismissal of the complaint.
Reversed.

## 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
# Kriegerische Abenteuer eines Friedfertigen

Published in Der Sammler volume 3 (1811).
English-language translations of Kriegerische Abenteuer eines Friedfertigen include:
* "The Military Campaigns of a Man of Peace" translated by Mary Millicent Montgomery (1833) (external scan)
* "Warlike Adventures of a Peaceful Man" translated by V. R. (1833) (external scan)
* "Warlike Adventures of a Peaceful Man" translated by Mary Elizabeth Lee (1845)
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
# Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
363 U.S. 190
Wassil A. KRESHIK v. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL.
Argued: June 6, 1960. ---
Messrs. Philip Adler and Eugene Gressman, for petitioners.
Messrs. Ralph Montgomery Arkush and Charles H. Tuttle, 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
# Killarney

Falconer wrote this song as an interlude for his play Peep o' Day (1861), with music by Michael Balfe.
* "Killarney" in The Canadian Soldiers' Song Book (1917).
* "Killarney" in The Illustrated Victorian Songbook (1984).
# Kill All Prisoners Order

* related portals: Japan, World War II.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Towards the end of World War II, as Japan neared defeat, orders were sent to Japanese POW camps to execute all Allied POWs once the invasion of Japan began. Very few copies of these orders survive.
Document No. 2701 (Certified as Exhibit "O" in Doc. No. 2687)
From the journal of Taiwan POW Camp H.Q. in Taihoku,
entry 1 August 1944
1. (entries about money, promotions of Formosans at Branch camps, including promotion of To Tu-Saku to 1st 01 Kaibiin - 5 entries)
2. The following answer about extreme measures for POWs was sent to the Chief of Staff of the 11th Unit (Formosa POW security No. 10).
    "Under the present situation if there were a mere explosion or fire a shelter for the time being could be had in nearby buildings such as the school, warehouse, or the like. However, at such time as the situation become urgent and if it be extremely important, the POWs will be concentrated and confined in their present location and under heavy guard the preparation for the final solution will be made.
    The time and method of this disposition are as follows:
    (1) The Time.
       Although the basic aim is to act under superior orders, individual disposition may be made in the following circumstances:
       (a) When an uprising of large numbers cannot be suppressed without the use of firearms.
       (b) When escapees from the camp may turn into a hostile fighting force
    (2) The Methods.
       (a) Whether they are destroyed individually or in groups, or however it is done, with mass bombing, poisonous smoke, poisons, drowning, decapitations, or what, dispose of them as the situation dictates.
       (b) In any case it is the aim not to allow the escape of a single one, to annihilate them all, and not to leave any traces.
    (3) To: The Commanding General
       The Commanding General of the Military Police
          Reported matters conferred on with the 114 Unit, the Kiirun Fortified Area H.Q., and each prefecture concerning the extreme security in Taiwan POW camps.
3. (The next entry concerns the will of a deceased POW)
# Kilgarlin v. Hill

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 120
Kilgarlin v. Hill
Argued: Feb. 20, 1967. --- Decided: April 10, 1967
See 386 U.S. 999, 87 S.Ct. 1300.
William E. Wright, for appellants.
Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mary K. Wall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
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
# Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution of St. Louis/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
63 U.S. 503
Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution of St. Louis
No question was raised upon the trial of this case in the court below, for the consideration of this court, nor have the plaintiffs in error, by counsel or otherwise, made one here. The writ of error was obviously sued out for delay. We direct the affirmance of the judgment and ten per cent. damages
It is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed with costs and interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum.

## 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
# Kilgarlin v. Hill/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 120
Kilgarlin v. Hill
Argued: Feb. 20, 1967. --- Decided: April 10, 1967
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
While I join the opinion of the Court, I reserve decision on one aspect of the problem concerning multi-member districts.
Under the present regime each voter in the district has one vote for each office to be filled. This allows the majority to defeat the minority on all fronts. It is suggested that in multi-member districts each person be able to vote for only one legislator, the theory being that in that way a minority, either political or otherwise, would have a chance to elect at least one representative.
I am not sure in my own mind how this problem should be resolved. But in view of the fact that appellants claim that multi-member districts of Texas are constructed in such a manner that Negroes are effectively disenfranchised, I would reserve that question for consideration when the case is once again before the District Court.
Mr. Justice CLARK would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Mr. Justice HARLAN and Mr. Justice STEWART would affirm the judgment of the District Court in its entirety, on the basis of the reasoning contained in Mr. Justice HARLAN's dissenting opinion in Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 447, 87 S.Ct. 569, 574, 17 L.Ed.2d 501.

## 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
# Killarney (Illustrated Victorian Songbook)

By Killarney's lakes and fells, Em'rald isles and winding bays Mountain paths and woodland dells Mem'ry every fondly strays. Bounteous nature loves all lands, Beauty wanders ev'rywhere, Footprints leaves on many strands But her home is surely there!  Angels fold their wings and rest  In that Eden of the west,  Beauty's home Killarney  Heav'n's reflex Killarney!
Innisfallen's ruin'd shrine May suggest a passing sigh, But man's faith can ne'er decline Such God's wonders floating by Castle Lough and Glena Bay Mountains Tore and Eagle's nest Still at Mucross you must pray, Though the monks are now at rest.  Angels wonder not that man  There would fain prolong life's span,  Beauty's home Killarney  Heav'n's reflex Killarney!
Music there for Echo dwells, Makes each sound a Harmony, Many voic'd the chorus swells, Till it faints in ecstasy. With the charmful tints below, Seems the Heav'n above to vie All rich colours that we know Tinge the cloud wreaths in that sky.  Wings of Angels so might shine  Glancing back soft light divine,  Beauty's home, Killarney  Heav'n's reflex Killarney!
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
# Killers

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Killers."
* 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.
* Killers, by Carl Sandburg
* The Killers, by Ernest Hemingway
# Killgore v. Blackwell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
381 U.S. 278
Killgore v. Blackwell
James Lanyon Killgore, pro se.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall and Harold H. Greene, 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
# Jay Burns Baking Company v. Bryan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
264 U.S. 504
Jay Burns Baking Company v. Bryan
Argued: October 19, 1923. --- Decided: April 14, 1924
Mr. Matthew A. Hall, of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 505-507 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Lloyd Dort, of Lincoln, Neb., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 508-510 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Jay v. Boyd
## Dissenting Opinions

    Warren
    Black
    Frankfurter
    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
351 U.S. 345
Cecil Reginald Jay, v. John P. Boyd.
No. 503. Argued: May 3, 1956. --- Decided: June 11, 1956.
[Syllabus from pages 345-346 intentionally omitted]
MessersWill Maslow, New York City, John Caughlan, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Mr.John V. Lindsay, New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice REED 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