OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1091

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3725th (closed) meeting, on 13 December 1996
The Security Council,
Recognizing the central role that Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has played in guiding the Organization in the discharge of his responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations,
Further recognizing his sustained efforts towards finding just and lasting solutions to various disputes and conflicts around the globe,
Commending the reforms that he has initiated and the many proposals that he has made on the restructuring and strengthening of the role and functioning of the United Nations system,
1. Acknowledges the contribution of Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali to international peace, security and development, his exceptional efforts to solve international problems in economic, social and cultural fields, as well as his endeavours to meet humanitarian needs and to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;
2. Expresses its deep appreciation to Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali for his dedication to the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter and to the development of friendly relations among nations.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 1104

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3763rd meeting, on 8 April 1997
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 808 (1993) of 22 February 1993 and 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993,
Having decided to consider the nominations for Judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia received by the Secretary-General by 13 March 1997,
Forwards the following nominations to the General Assembly in accordance with article 13 (d) of the Statute of the International Tribunal:
    Mr. Masoud Mohamed Al-Amri (Qatar)
    Mr. George Randolph Tissa Dias Bandaranayake (Sri Lanka)
    Mr. Antonio Cassese (Italy)
    Mr. Babiker Zain Elabideen Elbashir (Sudan)
    Mr. Saad Saood Jan (Pakistan)
    Mr. Claude Jorda (France)
    Mr. Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte (Nigeria)
    Mr. Richard George May (United Kingdom)
    Ms. Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (United States)
    Ms. Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba (Zambia)
    Dr. Rafael Nieto Navia (Colombia)
    Dr. Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko (Uganda)
    Dr. Elizabeth Odio Benito (Costa Rica)
    Dr. Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad (Egypt)
    Mr. Almiro Simões Rodrigues (Portugal)
    Mr. Mohamed Shahabuddeen (Guyana)
    Prof. Jan Skupinski (Poland)
    Prof. Wang Tieya (China)
    Mr. Lal Chand Vohrah (Malaysia)
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Farenholt

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
206 U.S. 226
United States v. Farenholt
Argued: April 25, 1907. --- Decided: May 13, 1907
Mr. John Q. Thompson and Assistant Attorney General Van Orsdel for appellant.
Messrs. George A. King and William B. King for appellee.
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
# United States v. Farrar

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 624
United States v. Farrar
Argued: April 28, 1930. --- Decided: May 26, 1930
The Attorney General and Mr. G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 624-628 intentionally omitted]
Mr. William H. Lewis, of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 628-630 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
# United States v. Falcone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 205
United States v. Falcone
Argued: Nov. 18, 1940. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1940
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and O. John Rogge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Daniel H. Prior, of Albany, N.Y., for respondents Salvatore Falcone and Joseph Falcone.
Mr. Roger O. Baldwin, of Syracuse, N.Y., for respondent Henry Alberico.
Mr. Justice STONE 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
# United States v. Davis (397 U.S. 301)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 301
United States v. Davis (397 U.S. 301)
Argued: Jan. 12, 1970. --- Decided: March 23, 1970
See 397 U.S. 1071, 90 S.Ct. 1495.
Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, for petitioner.
William Waller, Nashville, Tenn., for respondents.
Mr. 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
# United States v. Davis (243 U.S. 570)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 570
United States v. Davis (243 U.S. 570)
Argued: April 11, 1917. --- Decided: April 23, 1917
This is an indictment of a deputy clerk of the district court of Hawaii for converting to his own use moneys of persons other than the United States, deposited with the clerk to secure the payment of costs, by parties to proceedings other than proceedings in bankruptcy (counts 1, 3, 4, 7, 8), or by parties to proceedings in bankruptcy (counts 2, 5, 9). The sixth count charges the defendant, as clerk, with a like conversion. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained and the United States brings the case here. The judge assumed that the costs referred to in the several counts were fees of the clerk, and, we presume, in case of proceedings in bankruptcy, fees collected for the referee and trustee, and also that the funds were funds to be accounted for by the clerk as debtor, not as trustee, under the decision in United States v. Mason, 218 U.S. 517, 531, 54 L. ed. 1133, 1138, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28. He therefore was of opinion that the money was not within the purview of § 99 of the Penal Code [35 Stat. at L. 1106, chap. 321, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 10,267], punishing the embezzlement of money belonging in the registry of the court, etc. The same reasoning led him to the conclusion that § 97 did not apply, and it is the latter proposition that the United States seeks to have revised.
The judge objected that the charges in the indictment did not follow the language of § 97, but as he went on to consider whether the statute applied to the facts alleged, we shall deal with the latter question. Concerning the sufficiency of the indictment in other aspects, of course, we have nothing to say. By § 97 'any officer of the United States, or any assistant of such officer, who shall embezzle or wrongfully convert to his own use any money or property which may have come into his possession or under his control in the execution of such office or employment, . . . whether the same shall be the money or property of the United States or of some other person or party, shall, where the offense is not otherwise punishable by some statute of the United States,' be fined or imprisoned or both. If, as assumed, the defendant was not punishable under § 99, he was punishable under this. As pointed out by the government, the court below seems to have overlooked the fact that, except in the sixth count, the defendant is alleged to have been an assistant clerk, not the clerk. Whether it belonged to the United States or to the clerk, the money was not his and the case is within the words just quoted from the act. We confine our decision to the point raised by the assignment of error; upon that the decision was wrong.
Judgment reversed.
Mr. Justice McKenna dissents for the reasons given by Judge Morrow.

## 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
# United States v. Davis (370 U.S. 65)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
370 U.S. 65
United States v. Davis (370 U.S. 65)
Argued: March 28, 1962. --- Decided: June 4, 1962
I. Henry Kutz and Harold C. Wilkenfeld, Washington, D.C., for petitioner in No. 190 and for respondent in No. 268.
Converse Murdoch, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents in No. 190 and for petitioners in No. 268.
Mr. Justice CLARK 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
# United States v. Dawson

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Dawson."
* 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.
* United States v. Dawson (56 U.S. 467)
* United States v. Dawson (101 U.S. 569)
# United States v. Dawson (101 U.S. 569)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 569
United States v. Dawson
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
The Attorney-General for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Joseph H. Bradley, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# United States v. Davis (243 U.S. 570)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 570
United States v. Davis (243 U.S. 570)
Argued: April 11, 1917. --- Decided: April 23, 1917
Assistant Attorney General Warren for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# United States v. Davis (397 U.S. 301)/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 301
United States v. Davis (397 U.S. 301)
Argued: Jan. 12, 1970. --- Decided: March 23, 1970
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN concurs, dissenting.
I agree with the District Court, 274 F.Supp. 466, and with the Court of Appeals, 408 F.2d 1139, that respondent's contribution of working capital in the amount of $25,000 in exchange for 1,000 shares of preferred stock with a par value of $25 was made in order for the corporation to obtain a loan from the RFC and that the preferred stock was to be redeemed when the loan was repaid. For the reasons stated by the two lower courts, this redemption was not 'essentially equivalent to a dividend,' for the bona fide business purpose of the redemption belies the payment of a dividend. As stated by the Court of Appeals:
'Although closely-held corporations call for close scrutiny under the tax law, we will not under the facts and circumstances of this case, allow mechanical attribution rules to transform a legitimate corporate transaction into a tax avoidance scheme.' 408 F.2d, at 1143-1144.
When the Court holds it was a dividend, it effectively cancels § 302(b)(1) from the Code. This result is not a matter of conjecture, for the Court says that in the case of closely held or one-man corporations a redemption of stock is 'always' equivalent to a dividend. I would leave such revision to the Congress.

## 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
# Virgin's Choice, or, Youth Preferred to Old Age/The Virgin's Choice

THE VIRGIN'S CHOICE.
# Virgin Soil (Garnett)

* THE NOVELS OF IVAN TURGENEV
* ​ VIRGIN SOIL ​ TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN By CONSTANCE GARNETT ​ VOLUME I ​
* NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN MCMXX
* Volume I
* Volume II
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Virgin Soil (Garnett)/Volume 1

THE NOVELS OF
IVAN TURGENEV
THE NOVELS OF IVAN TURGENEV :
| I. | RUDIN. |
| II. | A HOUSE OF GENTLEFOLK. |
| III. | ON THE EVE. |
| IV. | FATHERS AND CHILDREN. |
| V. | SMOKE. |
| VI. & VII. | VIRGIN SOIL. 2 vols. |
| VIII. & IX. | A SPORTSMAN'S SKETCHES. 2 vols. |
| X. | DREAM TALES AND PROSE POEMS. |
| XI. | THE TORRENTS OF SPRING, ETC. |
| XII. | A LEAR OF THE STEPPES. |
| XIII. | THE DIARY OF A SUPERFLUOUS MAN, ETC. |
| XIV. | A DESPERATE CHARACTER, ETC. |
| XV. | THE JEW, ETC. |
| NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN ||
* THE NOVELS OF IVAN TURGENEV
* ​ VIRGIN SOIL ​ TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN By CONSTANCE GARNETT ​ VOLUME I ​
* NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN MCMXX
Printed in Great Britain
* Introduction
* Characters
Part I
* I
* II
* III
* IV
* V
* VI
* VII
* VIII
* IX
* X
* XI
* XII
* XIII
* XIV
* XV
* XVI
* XVII
* XVIII
* XIX
* XX
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Virgin's Choice, or, Youth Preferred to Old Age/Love and Despair

LOVE AND DESPAIR
# Virgin's Choice, or, Youth Preferred to Old Age/The Queen of France's Lamentation

The Queen of Frances's Lamentation.
FINIS.
Glasgow, Printed by J. & M. Robertson, Saltmarket, 1800.
# United States Bedding Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 491
United States Bedding Company v. United States
Argued: Dec. 11, 1924. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1925
Mr. Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.
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
# United States Baldwin Company v. Robertson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 168
United States Baldwin Company v. Robertson
Argued: April 29, 1924. --- Decided: May 26, 1924
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, J. S. Flannery, and John E. Cross, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Samuel S. Watson, of New York City, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 168-175 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Jung Ah Lung

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 621
United States v. Jung Ah Lung
Atty. Gen. Garland
T. D. Riordan, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 234
United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Company
Argued: May 3, 1946. --- Decided: May 20, 1946
Mr. Abraham J. Harris, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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
# United States v. Ju Toy

United States Supreme Court
198 U.S. 253
United States v. Ju Toy
Argued: April 3, 1905. --- Decided: May 8, 1905
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 253-257 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Hayden Johnson, Oliver Dibbls, and Henry C. Dibble for Ju Toy.
Mr. Justice Holmes 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
# United States v. Julian

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
162 U.S. 324
United States v. Julian
This was a petition for fees as commissioner of the circuit court for the Middle district of Tennessee.
The claim included a large number of items, but the only point in controversy before this court is whether petitioner was entitled to 15 cents for each jurat or certificate appended to depositions taken by him as such commissioner. The total number of jurats so appended was 238, and the total charge therefor was $35.70.
The court of claims allowed this item, and the government appealed.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Doge, for the United States.
Geo. A. King, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN 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
# United States v. Justice

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 535
United States v. Justice
APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case, as found by it, being thus:
On the 12th of August, 1861, Philip S. Justice, by a letter to Lieutenant Treadwell, first lieutenant of ordnance, proposed to supply the Ordnance Department with 4000 rifled muskets, similar in style and finish to the sample deposited with the said lieutenant, at $20 each.
On the next day Lieutenant Treadwell, inclosing Justice's proposition, wrote to General Ripley, then chief of ordnance, at Washington, as follows:
'I inclose a proposition from Mr. Justice to furnish rifle muskets, calibre .69. I have examined a sample of the musket, and it is a good serviceable arm, .69 calibre, clasp bayonet, long-range sight, original percussion barrel, and well finished.'
On August 16th, 1861, General Ripley replied to Lieutenant Treadwell, saying:
'You are authorized to accept Mr. Justice's proposition.'
And on August 17th, 1861, Lieutenant Treadwell wrote to Justice as follows:
'I am authorized by the Ordnance Department to accept your proposal of August 12th, to furnish for the United States 4000 rifled muskets, calibre 69/100 of an inch, equal in all respects to the sample deposited with me, at $20.'
In execution of the contract, Justice delivered from time to time, 2174 rifled muskets, all of which were inspected by subordinate officers appointed by Lieutenant Treadwell, and received under his official certificate that they had been duly inspected and approved. 'These arms' thus furnished, 'were not,' as the Court of Claims found, 'in all respects, similar to the sample arm, but on an average not inferior to it; which was far from being a standard or first-class arm of the United States. It was not equal to the Springfield rifle. And the Justice arms were far from being a first-class arm.'

## 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
# United States v. Huck Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 197
United States v. Huck Manufacturing Company
Donald F. Turner, Asst. U.S. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Dennis G. Lyons, Washington, D. C., and Thomas W. Pomeroy, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Assistant Attorney General Turner (Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Frank Goodman and Robert B. Hummel, on the brief), for the United States.
Dennis G. Lyons and Thomas W. Pomeroy, Jr. (Paul A. Porter, William L. McGovern, John A. Blair, S. K. McCune and W. Walter Braham, Jr., on the brief), 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
# United States v. Huck Manufacturing Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
382 U.S. 197
United States v. Huck Manufacturing Company
Judgment affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

## 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
# United States v. Hudson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
299 U.S. 498
United States v. Hudson
Argued: Nov. 17, 18, 1936. --- Decided: Jan 11, 1937
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Robert H.
Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Bernhard Knollenberg, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse