OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bohemian legends and other poems/When the Day Ends

* related portals: Czech literature.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
WHEN THE DAY ENDS.
When the day ends, and I shall sleep, Come see my grave, but do not weep, Nor let your grief be over wild. Who sleeps, is glad to rest in peace, And holy is the evening mild, When the day ends.
I loved you and you know it well, How much you helped me, can I tell? How many pains and tears you dried— Then come and softly say, “You sleep, But we shall meet somewhere at last, Because we loved.”
# Bartemeyer v. Iowa

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Bartemeyer v. Iowa."
* 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.
* Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)
* Bartemeyer v. Iowa (85 U.S. 129)
# Bartell v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
227 U.S. 427
Bartell v. United States
Argued: and submitted January 14, 1913. --- Decided: February 24, 1913
Mr. Joe Kirby for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 427-429 intentionally omitted]
Solicitor General Bullitt for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 429 intentionally omitted]
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
# Bartels v. Birmingham/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 126
Bartels v. Birmingham
Argued: April 3, 1947. --- Decided: June 23, 1947
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice MURPHY concur, dissenting.
As the opinion of the Court points out, the Form B contract involved in the present case was adopted, with the approval of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, after it had been held under an earlier form of contract that members of the orchestra were employees of the band leader. On the face of the present contract the dance hall proprietor is the employer even under traditional concepts of master and servant. For he has all of the conventional earmarks of the entrepreneur ownership, profit, loss, and control-if the provisions of the contract alone are considered. Then the requirements of the Social Security Acts are satisfied. And to hold the dance hall proprietor liable for the tax is not to contract the coverage contemplated by the statutory scheme.
I think the tax collector should be entitled to take such private arrangements at their face. In other situations a taxpayer may not escape the tax consequences of the business arrangements which he makes on the grounds that they are fictional. The Government may 'sustain or disregard the effect of the fiction as best serves the purposes of the tax statute.' Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 477, 60 S.Ct. 355, 358, 84 L.Ed. 406. That rule is not restricted in its application to the use by taxpayers of corporate or related devices to obtain tax advantages. It was applied in Gray v. Powell, 314 U.S. 402, 62 S.Ct. 326, 86 L.Ed. 301, where a railroad sought exemption from the Bituminous Coal Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 828 et seq., by contending that the operations of one who appeared to be an independent contractor were in fact its operations. The Court in rejecting the contention said that 'The choice of disregarding a deliberately chosen arrangement for conducting business affairs does not lie with the creator of the plan.' Id., 314 U.S. at page 414, 62 S.Ct. at page 334, 86 L.Ed. 301. I see no reason for creating an exception to that rule here. If the Government chooses to accept the contract on its face, the parties should be barred from showing that it conceals the real arrangement. Tax administration should not be so easily embarrassed.

## 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
# Bartemeyer v. Iowa (81 U.S. 26)

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Swayne
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 26
Bartemeyer v. Iowa
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa; the case being thus:
The 25th section of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, p. 5-6, which gives a right to this court to re-examine, in certain cases specified, the final judgment or decree of any suit in the highest court of law or equity in which a decision in the suit could be had, says that the same.
'May be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed, in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of; or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.'
This statute being in force, one Bartemeyer sought to bring here, under the 25th section thus referred to, of the Judiciary Act, a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Iowa. That court is composed of a chief justice and three associates. The writ was allowed by one of these last. The case, in this court, was submitted on printed briefs, in advance of its regular call, by Mr. W. T. Dittoe, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. H. O.'Commor, contra; no objection being taken by the latter to the fact that the writ was not signed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa; and the case being argued in the briefs on merits.
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
# Bartels v. Birmingham

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 126
Bartels v. Birmingham
Argued: April 3, 1947. --- Decided: June 23, 1947
Messrs. Thomas B. Roberts and Clyde B. Charlton, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioners.
Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for respondent Birmingham Collectors.
Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington, D.C., for respondents Williams et al.
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
# Bartels v. Iowa

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
262 U.S. 404
Bartels v. Iowa
BOHNING
v.
STATE OF OHIO.
No. 181.
POHL
v.
SAME.
No. 182.
NEBRASKA DISTRICT OF EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD OF MISSOURI, OHIO, AND OTHER STATES et al.
v.
McKELVIE et al.
No. 440.
No. 134, Argued and Submitted Nov. 28, 1922.
Nos. 181, 182, Argued Oct. 10, 1922.
No. 440, Argued Feb. 23, 1923.
Decided June 4, 1923.
No. 134:
Messrs. Frank E. Farwell and Charles E. Pickett, both of Waterloo, Iowa, and I. L. Albert, of Columbus, Neb., for plaintiff in error Bartels.
Mr. Bruce J. Flick, of Des Moines, Iowa, for the State of Iowa.
Nos. 181, 182:
[Argument of Counsel from pages 404-406 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Timothy S. Hogan and Frank Davis, Jr., both of Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiffs in error Bohning and Pohl.
Mr. E. J. Thobaben, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the State of Ohio.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 406-408 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. A. F. Mullen, of Omaha, Neb., and C. E. Sandall, of York, Neb., for plaintiffs in error Nebraska Dist. of Evangelical Lutheran Synod and others.
Messrs. Mason Wheeler, of Lincoln, Neb., and O. S. Spillman, of Pierce, Neb., for defendants in error McKelvie and others.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# Book Review Digest

The Book Review Digest is a periodical, published from 1905 onwards. It replaced the Quarterly Bibliography of Books Reviewed in Leading Periodicals.
Certain parts of this work are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before 1929.
The Cumulative Book Review Digest
The Book Review Digest
* Volume 2 (1906) External scan External scan
* Volume 3 (1907) External scan External scan
* Volume 4 (1908) External scan External scan
* Volume 5 (1909) External scan
* Volume 6 (1910) External scan External scan
* Volume 7 (1911) External scan
* Volume 8 (1912) External scan External scan
* Volume 9 (1913) External scan
* Volume 10 (1914) External scan
* Volume 11 (1915) External scan
* Volume 12 (1916) External scan External scan
* Volume 13 (1917) External scan External scan
* Volume 14 (1918) External scan
* Volume 15 (1919) External scan
* Volume 16 (1920) External scan
* Volume 17 (1921) External scan
* Volume 18 (1922) External scan
* Volume 19 (1923) External scan
# Book of Changes

* related portals: Confucianism.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, quotes, news, textbook, Wikidata item.
Chinese: 易經/易经, variously romanized as the Yìjīng, I-Ching, and Yi-King and typically translated as the Book of Changes, is an ancient Chinese guide to divination based on 64 hexagrams formed by the combination of the 8 trigrams (bagua) formed by sequences of whole (yang) and broken (yin) lines. It is also known as the Zhouyi (周易) from its traditional attribution to the Duke of Zhou. One of the Five Classics of ancient Chinese literature. Almost always published with the commentary known as the Ten Wings (|十翼, Shíyì), traditionally credited to Confucius.
English-language translations of 周易 include:
# Book-Prices Current

Book-Prices Current is a periodical, published from 1886 onwards. Certain parts of this work are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before 1929.
* Volume 1
* Volume 2 (1889) External scan
* Volume 3 (1890) External scan
* Volume 4 (1891) External scan
* Volume 5 (1892) External scan
* Volume 6
* Volume 7 (1894) External scan
* Volume 8 (1895) External scan
* Volume 9 (1896) External scan
* Volume 10 (1897) External scan External scan External scan
* Volume 11 (1898) External scan
* Volume 12 (1898) External scan External scan
* Volume 13 (1899) External scan External scan
* Volume 14 (1900) External scan External scan
* Volume 15 (1901) External scan External scan
* Volume 16 (1902) External scan
* Volume 17 (1903) External scan
* Volume 18 (1904) External scan External scan External scan
* Volume 19 (1905) External scan
* Volume 20 (1906) External scan
* Volume 21 (1907) External scan External scan
* Volume 22 (1908) External scan External scan External scan
* Volume 23 (1909) External scan
* Volume 24 (1910) External scan External scan
* Volume 25 (1911) External scan
* Volume 26 (1912) External scan
* Volume 27 (1913) External scan External scan
* Volume 28 (1914) External scan
* Volume 29 (1915) External scan
* Volume 30
* Volume 31 (1917) External scan
* Volume 32 (1918) External scan
* Volume 33 (1919) External scan
* Volume 34 (1920) External scan
* Volume 35 (1921) External scan
* Volume 36 (1922) External scan
Index
* "Index to the First Ten Volumes of Book Prices Current (1887 to 1896)" (1901) External scan
* Jaggard. Index to Book Prices Current for the Second Decade, 1897 to 1906 (1909) External scan
# Book of Common Prayer (1892)/Apostles' Creed

This is the text of the Apostles Creed used in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as part of the Morning Prayer liturgy.
​I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Iesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the holy Ghost, Born of the virgin Mary, Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, Was cruciﬁed, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the holy ghost, The holy Catholick Churche, The Com̄union of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the body, And the life everlasting. Amen.
# Book of Common Prayer

* related portals: Book of Common Prayer.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
The Book of Common Prayer is the short title of a number of related prayer books used in the Anglican Communion and related churches. The original was first published in 1549.
* Book of Common Prayer (1549)—first edition
* Book of Common Prayer (1552)—second edition
* Book of Common Prayer (1863)—(transcription project)
* Book of Common Prayer (1892)—a transcription of the original manuscript attached to the Act of Uniformity of 1662
* Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA)—based on the 1979 Episcopal Church of the United States of America edition
# Brownell v. Chase National Bank of New York

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 36
Brownell v. Chase National Bank of New York
Argued: Oct. 16, 17, 1956. --- Decided: Nov 19, 1956
Mr. George B. Searls, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas A. Ryan, New York City, for respondent trustee.
Mr. Samuel Anatole Lourie, New York City, for infant-respondents Hans Dietrich Schaefer et al.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

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

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 403
Brownell v. Singer
Argued: and Submitted March 8, 1954. ---
See 347 U.S. 970, 74 S.Ct. 774.
Mr.
James D. Hill, Washington, D.C., for petitioner in No. 401.
Mr. Albert R. Connelly, New York City, for respondent.
Messrs. Edward Feldman and Daniel Gersen, New York City, for petitioner in No. 402.
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
# Browne v. Thorn

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
260 U.S. 137
Browne v. Thorn
Argued: Oct. 20, 1922. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1922
Mr. James B. McDonough, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Ira D. Oglesby, of Ft. Smith, Ark., and L. C. Going, of Memphis, Tenn., for defendants 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
# Browne v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 255
Browne v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Argued: Jan. 19, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Mr. Ray Campbell, of Wichita, Kan., for petitioner.
Mr. Nelson H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Akrotiri

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Albania

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Andorra

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Algeria

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/American Samoa

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Angola

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Anguilla

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Antarctica

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Arctic Ocean

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Antigua and Barbuda

This page was last updated on 1 January 2003
This is a snapshot of the CIA World Fact Book as it existed on 26 March 2005
# Benitez Sampayo v. Bank of Nova Scotia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 270
Benitez Sampayo v. Bank of Nova Scotia
Argued: April 7, 1941. --- Decided: May 12, 1941
Messrs. F. B. Fornaris, of Ponce, P.R., and Elmer McClain, of Lima, Ohio, for petitioner.
Messrs. Henri Brown and Walter L. Newsom, Jr., both of San Juan, P.R., 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
# Bostick v. South Carolina/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 479
Bostick v. South Carolina
Argued: March 20, 1967. ---
The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, 247 S.C. 22, 145 S.E.2d 439, is reversed. Whitus v. State of Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1967).

## 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
# Bostic v. United States/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 547
Bostic v. United States
We granted the writ of certiorari in this case to consider whether the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had erred in holding that the petitioner had properly been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in order to avoid apprehension for the robbery of a federally insured bank. The Court of Appeals purported to uphold a conviction for this offense, though there was no evidence that the petitioner knew of the plan to commit murder, and he had been confined in prison for several months prior to the date the murder was committed. The memorandum for the United States in opposition to the granting of the writ urged that the petitioner was 'responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators in killing one member of the group,' and as to this issue, relied on the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
It now appears that these statements in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and in the memorandum of the United States were erroneous, and that the facts are not as we believed them to be at the time we granted the writ. The record shows that the petitioner was neither charged with nor convicted of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder. The conspiracy count on which the petitioner was convicted did not include any charge of conspiracy to murder. Indeed, in his closing argument to the jury the prosecutor stated that the petitioner had left the conspiracy prior to the murder, when he was returned to the penitentiary.
Inasmuch as our grant of the writ of certiorari in this case was predicated on the mistaken representation that the petitioner had been convicted of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder, we now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
It is ordered.

## Notes

* ↑ 400 U.S. 991, 91 S.Ct. 462, 27 L.Ed.2d 438.
* ↑ 424 F.2d 951. The opinion recites that the conspiracy count on which the petitioner was convicted 'alleged a conspiracy to rob federally insured banks with dangerous weapons and to commit murder to avoid apprehension for same.' 424 F.2d, at 953. The court went on to say, 'As to Bostic, although he had been returned to the penitentiary sometime before Ferguson's murder, there is no evidence that he had renounced or withdrawn from the conspiracy.' 424 F.2d, at 964.
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
# Bostick v. South Carolina

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 479
Bostick v. South Carolina
Argued: March 20, 1967. ---
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner.
Everett N. Brandon, Columbia, S.C., for respondents.
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
# Bostic v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 547
Bostic v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
No. 5250. Argued: April 21, 1971 --- Decided: May 24, 1971
Writ of certiorari, granted to review Court of Appeals' affirmance of petitioner's conviction of conspiracy to commit murder, dismissed as improvidently granted since, contrary to that court's opinion and Government's representation, it now appears that petitioner was not charged with or convicted of that offense.
424 F. 2d 951, certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
Thomas C. Binkley argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Philip M. Carden.
Beatrice Rosenberg argued the cause for the United States. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Jerome M. Feit.
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