document_title: Great Britain Davis Cup team

question_text: when did great britain win the davis cup

text: Great Britain Davis Cup team

text: History[edit]

text: Early years, dominance and rot (1900–1986)[edit]

text: Great Britain's first match, and first ever national team match in history, was a 0–3 loss to the United States in 1900.[1] The tournament was not organised in 1901, and Britain lost the following year, but the British won the competition for the first time in 1903.[1] The national team would go on to dominate the competition, winning the next three tournaments.[2]

text: The postwar period saw moderate results, but British fortunes declined until the appointment of 31-year old Paul Hutchins as captain in 1976.[3][4] He would captain the team for 10 years, and lead the team in 31 ties (a record).[4] He would lead Great Britain to the final in 1978, defeating Australia 3–2 in the semifinal, only to lose to the United States 1–4.[5] Despite losing in the final, the team won (alongside the women's Wightman Cup team) the BBC Sports Personality Team of the Year Award.[5] Likewise, it was the first time the LTA promoted the event.[5] According to The Guardian "Britain has seen a decline in its Davis Cup fortunes ever since [the final]."[5] The next two years saw mixed results, but in 1981 the team reached the semifinals, losing to Australia.[4] It would be their last semifinal until 2015.[3]

text: Declining fortunes (1986–2010)[edit]

text: Warren Jacques, an Australian, was appointed captain in 1988 as Hutchins' replacement.[6] He was appointed due to his former role in coaching Kevin Curren, the 1985 Wimbledon finalist.[6] However, the idea to appoint a person who was not of the team's nationality was so foreign that the LTA sought "special dispensation" from the International Tennis Federation.[6] The team's results continued to slide under Jacques leadership.[6]

text: Following the team's 0–5 defeat to France, Jacques was removed as captain and replaced by Tony Pickard.[7] When asked about the defeat, Jacques claimed "We're ten years from being competitive in the Davis Cup."[7] In the ensuing years, under Pickard's leadership, Great Britain would manage to keep its place in the World Group.[3] In 1994, Pickard "delivered a scathing attack on the Lawn Tennis Association's training department and threatened to resign as captain unless his views [were] acted upon" after the team's defeat to Portugal.[8] In response the LTA did not renew Pickard's contract.[9] The team lost the last four matches under Pickard's stewardship, marking the worst performance in twenty years.[9] David Lloyd took over as captain later that year.[9] His captaincy started well, with Great Britain winning the Europe/Africa Zone II, and being promoted to the Europe/Africa Zone I.[3] The team would remain in Europe/Africa Zone I throughout the rest of Lloyd's captaincy.[3]

text: The defeat to the Czech national team in 2000 led to the resignation of David Lloyd as captain.[10] Before his departure he criticised the British player for not being fit enough.[10] On his departure, Lloyd went on to criticise the LTA and it's work.[10] In response John Crowther, the Executive Director of the LTA, stated they had "lost confidence" his Lloyd's abilities, and appointed former top 10 player Roger Taylor as his replacement.[10] During Taylor's captaincy, the post itself was under criticism, with Tim Henman claiming "It's mainly handing out the drinks and the bananas" since most of the players had their own coaches.[11] Taylor's first match as captain was against Ecuador, in which Britain lost 2–3 at home on grass.[11] The Guardian quipped that "In one hundred years of the Davis Cup there had never been a more embarrassing defeat."[11] Despite this, the team continued to decline in the ranking.[12] In their 2003 match against Australia the team's top player was ranked 163 in the world; both Henman and Greg Rusedski were hampered by injury, and could not take part.[12]

text: On 1 January 2004 Jeremy Bates was appointed as team captain.[13] He led the national team to two victories in eight ties, and resigned after the team's 2–3 defeat to Israel.[13] John Lloyd was employed later that year as the team's new captain.[14] He is the brother of David Lloyd, a former team captain.[14] The decline continued, and John Lloyd captained his last match in 2010, when the team lost 2–3 to Lithuania. On his resignation, he stated "Call me old-fashioned, but when is it a convenience, and not a privilege, to play for your country?"[15] He went on to criticise the mentality that Andy Murray didn't need to play as long as the rest of the team were not good enough, claiming that neither the British public or media would accept such a position if Wayne Rooney had used the same argument.[15] Henman backed Lloyd, claiming it would be wrong to fault Lloyd and coach Paul Annacone for the team's bad performance over the years.[16] The problem was structural he argued, and lamented the failture of the LTA to produce talented players.[16]

text: Resurgence under Leon Smith (2010–present)[edit]

text: Leon Smith was appointed as team captain in 2010.[17] His first tie was against Turkey in the play-offs of the Europe/Africa Zone Group II (the second lowest tier in the game) at home in Eastbourne, UK.[17] A defeat would have sent the national team to the lowest tier of the game.[17] Smith picked James Ward, Jamie Baker, Colin Fleming and Ken Skupski to play the tie, and defeated Turkey 5–0.[17] This would mark the beginning of the team's resurgence.[17] In 2011, the team won the Europe/Africa Zone Group II (third division), and was promoted to the Europe/Africa Zone Group I.[17] Andy Murray, who had not played in the 2009 competition, returned in 2010 for the match against Luxembourg, winning 6–0, 6–0, 6–0 against Laurent Bram in the first rubber .[17] Explaining his hiatus, Murray quipped that he "wanted the younger guys to step up and experience it", claiming "There was no use for us being in the World Group because we weren't ready for it."[18] 2012 started well, with a 3–2 victory over Slovakia, but ended with the first defeat under Smith's captaincy against Belgium.[17]

text: In its second round of the 2013 Europe/Africa Zone Group I the team won from 0–2 down, to defeat Russia 3–2.[17] Both Dan Evans and Ward had lost five setters on the first day, but a victory in the doubles and a five-set win by Ward on the third day, gave way to a straight sets victory in the fifth rubber.[17] It was the first time since 1930 that the national team had managed to win from 0–2 down.[19] In the World Group play-offs that year Murray returned after a two-year hiatus, and helped defeat Croatia 4–1.[17] It would mark the team's return to the World Group, having dropped out in 2007.[17]

text: In the team's first match in the World Group since 2007, Great Britain won 3–1 over the United States, marking its first victory in the World Group since 1986.[20] The tie was played on clay courts in the United States in the hope that the Americans would defeat Murray on his weakest surface.[20] The team would lose its next tie against Italy 1–3.[21] The team started 2015 in the World Group, and would win the title for the first time in 79 years (last victory was in 1936).[22] On their run to the final, the team defeated the United States, France and Australia before defeating Belgium in the final.[23] It would mark the first final reached since 1978.[23] As defending champions in 2016 the team reached the semifinals, in which they were defeated by Argentina 2–3.[24]

text: Captain[edit]

text: 34 different individuals has served as Captain of the Great Britain Davis Cup team.

text:
Arthur Gore (1900)
William Collins (1902–1908)
Josiah Ritchie (1908–1909)
James Parke (1909–1911)
Charles Dixon (1911–1913)
Roger McNair (1911–1913)
Alfred Hickson (1913–1914)
Roger McNair (1919–1922)
Arthur Bately (1922–1923)
Frank Riseley (1923–1924)
Anthony Sabelli (1924–1925)
Albert Prebble (1925–1927)

Herbert Barrett (1927–1928)
Anthony Sabelli (1928–1930)
Herbert Barrett (1930–1938)
Francis Stowe (1938–1948)
Colin Gregory (1948–1953)
Herman David (1953–1956)
Geoff Paish (1956–1959)
John Barrett (1959–1962)
Headley Baxter (1962–1967)
Peter Hare (1967–1968)
Headley Baxter (1968–1971)
Ken Jarvis (1971–1972)

Tony Pickard (1973–1976)
Paul Hutchins (1976–1986)
Warren Jacques (1987–1991)
Tony Pickard (1991–1994)
Bill Knight (1994–1995)
David Lloyd (1995–2000)
Roger Taylor (2000–2004)
Jeremy Bates (2004–2006)
John Lloyd (2006–2010)
Leon Smith (2010–present)

text: Players[edit]

text: Current[edit]

text: The following players have been picked to play matches in the 2017 season.

text:
Player
Date of birth (age)
Singles (W–L)
Doubles (W–L)
Latest call-up

Edmund, KyleKyle Edmund
(1995-01-08) 8 January 1995 (age 22)
3–5
—
2017 First Round

Evans, DanDan Evans
(1990-05-23) 23 May 1990 (age 27)
6–14
—
2017 First Round

Inglot, DominicDominic Inglot
(1986-03-06) 6 March 1986 (age 31)
—
2–3
2017 First Round

Murray, JamieJamie Murray
(1986-02-13) 13 February 1986 (age 31)
0–1
11–4
2017 First Round

text: Recent[edit]

text: The following players played for the national team in the past 12 months, but are not part of the current squad.

text:
Player
Date of birth (age)
Singles (W–L)
Doubles (W–L)
Latest call-up

Murray, AndyAndy Murray
(1987-05-15) 15 May 1987 (age 30)
30–3
9–5
2016 Semifinals

Ward, JamesJames Ward
(1987-02-09) 9 February 1987 (age 30)
10–11
—
2016 Quarterfinals

text: Results and fixtures[edit]

text:
Year
Competition
Date
Surface
Venue
Opponent
Score
Result

2016
World Group, First round
4–6 March
Hard (i)
Barclaycard Arena, Birmingham (GBR)
 Japan
3–1
Win

World Group, Quarterfinals
15–17 July
Clay
Tašmajdan Stadium, Belgrade (SRB)
 Serbia [7]
3–2
Win

World Group, Semifinals
16–18 September
Hard (i)
Commonwealth Arena, Glasgow (GBR)
 Argentina [6]
2–3
Loss

2017
World Group, First round
3–5 Feb
Hard (i)
TD Place Arena, Ottawa (CAN)
 Canada
3–2
Win

World Group, Quarterfinals
7–9 Apr
Clay (i)
Kindarena, Rouen (FRA)
 France
1–4
Loss


document_title: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

question_text: a quorum for a decision in the supreme court is

root

text: Terms and sittings[edit]

text: A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.

tag: p

text: The Court's authority to hear cases[edit]

text: Appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text: In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods, of which the first two account for the overwhelming majority of cases decided:

text:
By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.
By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
By appeal from certain decisions of United States district courts in certain cases involving redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, or when specifically authorized in a particular statute.
By a certified question or proposition of law from one of the United States Courts of Appeals, meaning that the Court of Appeals requests the Supreme Court to instruct it on how to decide the case. This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981.
By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.

tag: ul

text: Original jurisdiction[edit]

text: Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." The original jurisdiction of the Court is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. This statute provides further that, in the case of disputes between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction and no lower court may hear such cases.

text: The number of original jurisdiction cases heard by the court is small; generally only one or two such cases are heard per term. Because the nine-member Supreme Court is not well-suited to conducting pretrial proceedings or trials, original jurisdiction cases accepted by the Court are typically referred to a well-qualified lawyer or lower-court judge to serve as special master, conduct the proceedings, and report recommendations to the Court. The Court then considers whether to accept the special master's report or whether to sustain any exceptions filed to the report.

text: Although jury trials are in theory possible in the Court's original jurisdiction cases, there has not been one since Georgia v. Brailsford in 1794.[2] In 1950, in the case United States v. Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be empaneled and would hear the case alongside the justices of the Court.[3]

text: Selection of cases[edit]

text:
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction has been discretionary.[4] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[5][6]

text: The Court strictly enforces its requirements for the preparation and timely filing of certiorari petitions, in order to manage such a massive caseload. This occasionally results in harsh consequences, as Justice Thomas acknowledged in a 2007 opinion: "Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court's Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late ... Dickson was executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson's first in this Court, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion."[7]

text: In theory, each Justice's clerks write a brief for the Justice outlining the questions presented, and offering a recommendation as to whether certiorari should be granted; in practice, most Justices (all of the current court, except Justices Alito and Gorsuch) have their clerks participate in the cert pool.[8][9][10]

text: During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. (During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually). Before each conference, the Chief Justice prepares a list of those petitions he believes have sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Any other Justice may also add a case to the "discuss list"; cases not designated for discussion by any Justice are automatically denied review. The Court or a Justice may also decide that a case be "re-listed" for discussion at a later conference; this occurs, for example, where the Court decides to request input from the Solicitor General of the United States on whether a petition should be granted.[11]

text: The votes of four Justices at conference (see Rule of four) will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (or the certified question or other extraordinary writ), then a briefing schedule is arranged for the parties to submit their briefs in favor of or against a particular form of relief. During this time, an individual or group having an interest in a case but not a party to the case may submit a motion to appear before the court as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Except for certain specific categories (such as lawyers for state and local governments) or where all parties to the case consent, it is in the Court's discretion whether such motions are granted.

text: The grant or denial of certiorari petitions by the Court are usually issued as one-sentence orders without explanation.

text: Cases that fall within the Court's original jurisdiction are initiated by filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court, and normally are assigned to a special master appointed by the Court for the taking of evidence and making recommendations, after which the Court may accept briefs and hear oral arguments as in an appellate case.

text: Hearing cases[edit]

text: Filing briefs[edit]

text: Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:

text: Oral arguments[edit]

text: Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.

text: To file pleadings or to argue a case, an attorney must be a member of the bar of the Court. (The primary requirement for admission to the Bar is that the attorney must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state or territory for at least the past three years.) Justices are allowed to interrupt the attorney speaking in order to ask him or her questions, and particularly since the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986, do so often.[13]

text: The Court began recording Oral Arguments in October 1955.[14] Beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court began the practice of posting recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments made during the preceding week on Fridays on the Court's website.

text: In an interview for C-SPAN, former Justice Scalia, speaking for himself, noted that by the time the Justices hear oral arguments, having read the submissions by the parties and amici, it was "very rare, though not unheard of", for the discussion during the oral arguments to change his view of a case in which he had already made up his mind based on the submissions and his research about the case. However, he also made the point that it was "quite common" for him to go into Oral Arguments with his mind not made up yet, as the cases are usually very hard and difficult, and that in those situations a persuasive attorney could make the difference for him.[15]

text: Forming opinions[edit]

text: The conference: assignment of opinions[edit]

text: At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[16] At this conference, each justice—in order from most to least senior—states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.

text: Former Justice Scalia professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[17] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[18] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (but always the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him- or herself.

text: Circulating draft opinions and changing of views[edit]

text: The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[19] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.

text: Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.

text: The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[20] While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[21] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[22] Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[23] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

text: A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.

text: After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[24]

text: Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially affect the outcome of a pending case, the justices will likely elect to reschedule the case for rehearing.

text: Tied votes and lack of quorum[edit]

text:
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then a tied vote is possible. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case.
The court tries to avoid such rulings when possible: After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.

text: A quorum of justices to hear and decide a case is six. If, through recusals or vacancies, fewer than six justices can participate in a case, and a majority of qualified justices determines that the case cannot be heard in the next term, then the decision of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been equally divided on the case. An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel consisting of the three most senior active circuit judges.[25]

text: Announcement of opinions[edit]

text: Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns.[26]

text: The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion per curiam. The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States.

text: Reporting and citation of cases[edit]

text: Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyers' Edition, corresponding to two privately published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S. Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyers' Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week (U.S.L.W.). In more recent years, opinions have been available electronically soon after they appeared on commercial sites such as Lexis or Westlaw, on Internet sites such as FindLaw and on the Court's own website.[27]

text: The Reporter of Decisions is the court official responsible for the publication of the Court's opinions and orders. The current Reporter of Decisions is Christine Luchok Fallon.

text: Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.


document_title: Hormone receptor

question_text: where are receptors for water soluble hormones located

text: Hormone receptor

text: General Ligand Binding[edit]

text: Hormone receptor proteins bind to a hormone as a result of an accumulation of weak interactions. Because of the relatively large size of enzymes and receptors, the large amount of surface area provides the basis for these weak interactions to occur. This binding is actually highly specific because of the complementarity of these interactions between polar, non-polar, charged, neutral, hydrophilic, or hydrophobic residues. Upon binding, the receptor often undergoes a conformational change and may bind further signaling ligands in order to activate a signaling pathway. Because of these highly specific and high affinity interactions between hormones and their receptors, very low concentrations of hormone are needed to produce significant cellular response.[5] Receptors can have various different structures depending on the function of the hormone and the structure of its ligand. Therefore, hormone binding to its receptor is a complex process which can be mediated by cooperative binding, reversible and irreversible interactions, and multiple binding sites.[2]

text: Functions[edit]

text: Transmission of Signal[edit]

text: The presence of hormone or multiple hormones enables a response in the receptor which begins a cascade of signaling. The hormone receptor interacts with different molecules in order to induce a variety of changes, such as the increase or decrease of nutrient sources, growth, and other metabolic functions. These signaling pathways are complex mechanisms mediated by feedback loops where different signals activate and inhibit other signals. If a signaling pathway ends with the increase in production of a nutrient, that nutrient is then a signal back to the receptor that acts as a competitive inhibitor to prevent further production.[6] Signaling pathways regulate cells through activating or inactivating gene expression, transport of metabolites, and controlling enzymatic activity in order to manage growth and functions of metabolism.[7]

text: Intracellular (Nuclear Receptors)[edit]

text: Intracellular and nuclear receptors are a direct way for the cell to respond to internal changes and signals. Intracellular receptors are activated by hydrophobic ligands which pass through the cellular membrane. All nuclear receptors are very similar in structure, and are described with intrinsic transcriptional activity. Intrinsic transcriptional involves the three following domains:[8] transcription-activating,[9] DNA-binding,[10] and ligand-binding.[11] These domains and ligands are hydrophobic and are able to travel through the membrane.[12] The movement of macromolecules and ligand molecules into the cell enables a complex transport system of intracellular signal transfers through different cellular environments until response is enabled.[13] Nuclear receptors are a special class of intracellular receptor which specifically aid the needs of the cell to express certain genes. Nuclear receptors often bind directly to DNA by targeting specific DNA sequences in order to express or repress transcription of nearby genes.[1]

text: Trans-Membrane Receptors[edit]

text: The extracellular environment is able to induce changes within the cell. Hormones, or other extracellular signals, are able to induce changes within the cell by binding to membrane-bound receptors.[5] This interaction allows the hormone receptor to produce second messengers within the cell to aid response. Second messengers may also be sent to interact with intracellular receptors in order to enter the complex signal transport system that eventually changes cellular function.[2]

text: Aiding Gene Expression[edit]

text: Hormone receptors can behave as transcription factors by interacting directly with DNA or by cross-talking with signaling pathways.[1] This process is mediated through co-regulators. In the absence of ligand, receptor molecules bind corepressors in order to repress gene expression, compacting chromatin through histone deacetylatase. When a ligand is present, nuclear receptors undergo a conformational change to recruit various coactivators. These molecules work to remodel chromatin. Hormone receptors have highly specific motifs which are able to interact with coregulator complexes.[14] This is the mechanism through which receptors can induce regulation of gene expression depending on both the extracellular environment and the immediate cellular composition. Steroid hormones and their regulation by receptors are the most potent molecule interactions in aiding gene expression.[1]

text: Problems with nuclear receptor binding as a result of shortages of ligand or receptors can have drastic effects on the cell. The dependency on the ligand is the most important part in being able to regulate gene expression, so the absence of ligand is drastic to this process. For example, estrogen deficiency is a cause of osteoporosis and the inability to undergo a proper signaling cascade prevents bone growth and strengthening. Deficiencies in nuclear receptor-mediated pathways play a key role in the development of disease, like osteoporosis.[15]

text: Classification[edit]

text: Receptors for water-soluble hormones[edit]

text: Water-soluble hormones include glycoproteins, catecholamines, and peptide hormones composed of polypeptides, e.g. thyroid-stimulating hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and insulin. These molecules are not lipid-soluble and therefore cannot diffuse through cell membranes. Consequently, receptors for peptide hormones are located on the plasma membrane because they have bound to a receptor protein located on the plasma membrane.[16]

text: Water-soluble hormones come from amino acids and are located and stored in endocrine cells until actually needed.[17]

text: The main two types of transmembrane receptor hormone receptor are the G-protein-coupled receptors and the enzyme-linked receptors. These receptors generally function via intracellular second messengers, including cyclic AMP (cAMP), cyclic GMP (cGMP), inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP3) and the calcium (Ca2+)-calmodulin system.

text: Receptors for lipid-soluble hormones[edit]

text: Steroid hormone receptors and related receptors are generally soluble proteins that function through gene activation. Lipid-soluble hormones target specific sequences of DNA by diffusing into the cell. When they have diffused into the cell, they bind to receptors (intracellular), and migrate into the nucleus.[18] heir response elements are DNA sequences (promoters) that are bound by the complex of the steroid bound to its receptor. The receptors themselves are zinc-finger proteins.[19] These receptors include those for glucocorticoids (glucocorticoid receptors), estrogens (estrogen receptors), androgens (androgen receptors), thyroid hormone (T3) (thyroid hormone receptors), calcitriol (the active form of vitamin D) (calcitriol receptors), and the retinoids (vitamin A) (retinoid receptors). Receptor-protein interactions induce the uptake and destruction of their respective hormones in order to regulate their concentration in the body. This is especially important for steroid hormones because many body systems are entirely steroid dependent.[20]

text: List of hormone receptors[edit]

text: For some of these classes, in any given species (such as, for example, humans), there is a single molecule encoded by a single gene; in other cases, there are several molecules in the class.

text:
Androgen receptors
Calcitriol receptors
Corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor 1
Corticotropin releasing hormone receptor 2
Estrogen receptors
Follicle-stimulating hormone receptors
Glucagon receptors
Gonadotropin receptors
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors
Growth hormone receptors
Luteinizing hormone[21]
Progesterone receptors
Retinoid receptors
Somatostatin receptors
Thyroid hormone receptors
Thyrotropin receptors


document_title: Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

question_text: what are the different kinds of mike's hard lemonade

question_tokens: what are the different kinds of mike 's hard lemonade

text: Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

text: History[edit]

text: Mike's was introduced in Canada in 1996 as a mix of vodka, natural flavors, and carbonated water.  mike's entered the U.S. market on April 1, 1999, replacing the vodka base with a proprietary malt base.

text: Products[edit]

text:
Mike's is offered in a variety of formats in both bottles and cans: singles, 6-packs, and multi-packs.  All flavors and formats are 5% ABV, or 3.2% ABV where required by law, and have been crafted to remove gluten.[2]
Besides their flagship lemonade, Mike's offers a variety of permanent and seasonal flavors including Black Cherry, Strawberry, Watermelon, and many more.[3]

text: Drink on the bright side campaign[edit]

text: In 2017, Mike's launched the "Drink on the bright side" campaign, illustrating how consumers's favorite times pair perfectly with mike's.  Utilizing the brand's notorious yellow color, early internet culture, and happy imagery, the campaign received accolades[4] for disrupting traditional beer advertising techniques.  The campaign is continuing in 2018 with sponsored comedy tours, Snapchat filter integration, and a limited edition 6-pack of the brand's iconic lemonade.

text: Involvement in charities[edit]

text: Mike's has a long history of working with charities, specifically supporting U.S. troops and breast cancer research.

text:
Mike's donated nearly $1MM to Boot Campaign throughout their partnership.
Mike's partnered with the USO in 2018, donating $250,000.
As part of a fall seasonal package takeover, Mike's contributes $250,000/year to breast cancer research.[citation needed]


document_title: Skin Wars

question_text: who was the winner of season 1 skin wars

text: Skin Wars

text: Production[edit]

text: On September 12, 2013, GSN ordered eight episodes of the series,[1][2] making it GSN's first television show devoted to body art.[2] On February 4, 2014, GSN announced Rebecca Romijn as host of Skin Wars, with RuPaul Charles, Craig Tracy and Robin Slonina serving as judges.[3]

text: The series premiered on GSN August 6, 2014.[4] That same night, the network also began airing an online series entitled Skin Wars: The Naked Truth with Kandee Johnson airing immediately after Skin Wars on DOOR3, GSN's YouTube channel targeted toward 18- to 25-year-olds. The series features commentary from Johnson as well as highlights from that night's episode and a "Skinterview" with one of the contestants.[5]

text: On September 30, 2014, GSN announced plans to air a ten-episode second season of Skin Wars with Romijn and all three judges returning to reprise their respective roles.[6] The second season premiered June 10, 2015.[7]

text: A spinoff called Skin Wars: Fresh Paint hosted by RuPaul aired as a special on August 26, 2015. It featured six highly accomplished artists, each at the top of their game, as they leave their comfort zones to compete in body painting for the first time. The artists must conquer three difficult challenges as they are mentored by three top artists from the first season, Dutch Bihary, Lawrence "Gear" Duran and Season One champion, Natalie Fletcher. As the artists work closely with their body painting mentors they try to quickly master the craft and win the $10,000 prize and become champion. It premiered to 456,000 viewers.[8] Later, it became a series itself, premiering on June 15, 2016.[9]

text: On August 27, 2015, GSN renewed the series for a third season.[10]

text: Season 1[edit]

text: Contestants[edit]

text: The 10 body painters competing in the first season were:[11]

text:
Contestant
Outcome

Alan Anderson, 38
10th

Sean Avram, 39
9th

Angela Roberts, 22
8th

Mythica Von Griffyn, 43
7th

Felle Kelsaw, 41
6th

Lawrence "Gear" Duran, 35
5th

Nicole Hays, 29
4th

Dutch Bihary, 41
3rd

Shannon Holt, 38
Runner-Up

Natalie Fletcher, 28
Winner

tag: table

text: Contestant Progress[edit]

text:
Elimination Chart

Artists
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Natalie
SAFE
WIN
WIN
SAFE
LOW‡
F/O
LOW‡
WINNER

Shannon
WIN
SAFE
LOW‡
LOW‡
HIGH
WIN
HIGH
RUNNER-UP

Dutch
HIGH‡
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW‡
SAFE
WIN
3RD PLACE‡

Nicole
SAFE
SAFE‡
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
ELIM

Gear
SAFE
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
WIN
ELIM‡

Felle
HIGH
SAFE
HIGH‡
WIN
ELIM

Mythica
LOW
LOW
HIGH
ELIM

Angela
SAFE
LOW
ELIM

Sean
LOW
ELIM

Alan
ELIM

text: Season 2[edit]

text: Contestants[edit]

text: The 12 body painters competing in the second season were:[12]

text:
Contestant
Age
Hometown
Place Finished

Marcio Karam
53
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
12th

Rudy Zanzibar Campos
30
Houston, Texas
11th

Rachel Deboer
40
Maui, Hawaii
10th

Fernello Nelson
30
Queens, New York
9th

Sammie Bartko
38
Heber City, Utah
8th

Dawn Marie Svanoe
44
Madison, Wisconsin
7th

Kyle Vest
25
Orlando, Florida
6th

Rio Sirah
33
Atlanta, Georgia
5th

Cheryl Ann Lipstreu
37
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
4th

Aryn Fox
27
Newport, Kentucky
3rd

Avi Ram
28
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
2nd

Lana Chromium
29
San Diego, California
1st

text: Contestant Progress[edit]

text:
Elimination Chart

Artists
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Lana
WIN
SAFE
HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH‡
WIN
HIGH
F/O
WINNER

Avi
SAFE
WIN
HIGH
HIGH‡
HIGH
WIN
LOW
WIN
WIN
RUNNER-UP‡

Aryn
SAFE
HIGH
SAFE
WIN
HIGH
HIGH
LOW‡
LOW
HIGH‡
3RD PLACE

Cheryl Ann
HIGH
HIGH‡
LOW
LOW
LOW
SAFE
LOW
LOW‡
ELIM

Rio
SAFE
SAFE
WIN‡
LOW
HIGH‡
LOW
HIGH
ELIM

Kyle
HIGH
SAFE
HIGH
SAFE
WIN
LOW
ELIM

Dawn Marie
SAFE
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
ELIM

Sammie
SAFE
SAFE
LOW
SAFE
ELIM

Fernello
LOW‡
SAFE
SAFE
ELIM

Rachel
LOW
LOW
ELIM

Rudy
SAFE
ELIM

Marcio
ELIM

text: Season 3[edit]

text: Contestants[edit]

text: The 12 body painters competing in the third season are:[13]

text:
Contestant
Age
Hometown
Place Finished

Jermaze Wade
36
Decatur, Georgia
12th

Shelley Wapniak
33
Brooklyn, New York
11th

Kyera Dalesandro
22
Virginia Beach, Virginia
10th

Jessica "Jess" Watson Miller
24
Sydney, Australia
9th

Hans Haveron
36
Los Angeles, California
8th

Joseph "Otto" Ott
38
Winneconne, Wisconsin
7th

Luis Martinez
21
Atlanta, Georgia
6th

Tiffany Beckler
26
Rock Hill, South Carolina
5th

Michael Mejia
25
Queens, New York
4th

Brittney Pelloquin
28
Broussard, Louisiana
3rd

Alison Kenyon
44
Grass Valley, California
Runner-Up

Rick Uribe
20
El Paso, Texas
Winner

text: Contestant Progress[edit]

text:
Elimination Chart

Artists
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rick
SAFE
WIN
WIN
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH‡
LOW
WINNER

Alison
SAFE‡
SAFE
LOW
WIN
HIGH
SAFE
HIGH‡
HIGH
WIN
RUNNER-UP‡

Brittney
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
SAFE
HIGH
LOW
WIN
HIGH‡
3RD PLACE

Michael
HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH‡
WIN
LOW‡
WIN
LOW
ELIM

Tiffany
WIN
SAFE
HIGH
SAFE
SAFE
WIN
SAFE
ELIM

Luis
SAFE
SAFE
SAFE‡
LOW
LOW‡
ELIM

Otto
SAFE
LOW
HIGH
SAFE
ELIM

Hans
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
SAFE
QUIT

Jess
SAFE
SAFE‡
SAFE
ELIM

Kyera
LOW
SAFE
ELIM

Shelley
SAFE
ELIM

Jermaze
ELIM

text: In Episode 5, Hans quit the competition at panel after a fall out with the judges.

text: International broadcast[edit]

text: In Australia, the series premiered on LifeStyle You on May 26, 2015.[14] All three seasons are now available on Netflix.

text: In Canada, the series aired on GameTV in 2015.[15]

text: In the United Kingdom, the series premiered on truTV UK in 2015.[16]

text:
In Brazil, the show's first season has been broadcast on Multishow since February, 2016 and since 2017 on E!
In South Africa it broadcasts on Sony Max.
In India,the show's first season has been broadcast on FYI TV18 since 2016.


document_title: The Theatre

question_text: the first public playhouse ( the theatre ) is built in london

text: The Theatre

text: History[edit]

text: The Mayor and Corporation of London banned plays in 1572 as a measure against the plague, not wanting to attract crowds of strangers. In 1575 they formally expelled all players from the city.[1] This prompted the construction of playhouses outside the jurisdiction of London, in the liberties of Halliwell/Holywell in Shoreditch and later the Clink, and at Newington Butts near the established entertainment district of St. George's Fields in rural Surrey.[1] The Theatre was constructed in 1576 by James Burbage in partnership with his brother-in-law, one John Brayne, (the owner of the Red Lion)[2] on property that had originally been the grounds of the dissolved Halliwell Priory (or Holywell). Brayne had advanced Burbage the money needed to build The Theatre, and in return, Brayne received a portion of the profits and owned some of the property (Burbage married Brayne's daughter Ellen in 1575).[3] The Theatre was in Shoreditch, beyond the northern boundary of the City of London and outside the jurisdiction of civil authorities, who were often opposed to the theatre. This area in the "suburbs of sin" was notorious for licentious behaviour, brothels and gaming houses. A year later the Curtain Theatre was built nearby, making the area London's first theatrical and entertainment district.[4] "When Burbage and Brayne mortgaged The Theatre, Brayne had just recently resolved another fight with one of his brothers-in-law over a different mortgage" [5] Brayne and Burbage had never written a contract, which eventually led to many quarrels concerning who spent what on getting The Theatre started.[6]

text: Throughout the building of The Theatre, Burbage and Brayne continually became indebted to each other. To fix this they constructed schemes to keep the building of The Theatre going. John Hind was one of the creditors for the construction of The Theatre, however, almost nothing else is known about him except that there was also a contract between him and Burbage/Brayne which entailed that he arrange players for them. One of their schemes was to put on plays in The Theatre while it was still being built, to raise money for further construction.[7]

text: Although Burbage's son later claimed the Theatre as the first permanent playhouse in the London conurbation, it may not have been the first permanent theatre to serve Londoners. The Newington Butts playhouse may have been built as early as 1575,[8] certainly actor Jerome Savage renewed a lease on the site on 25 March 1576, three weeks before Burbage's lease in Shoreditch.[9] Newington Butts was clearly established by Lady Day 1577,[10] and Wickham et al. interpret the available documents as saying that Savage was adapting an existing building constructed by Richard Hicks rather than building from scratch.[11]

text: The design of The Theatre was possibly adapted from the inn-yards that had served as playing spaces for actors and/or bear baiting pits. The building was a polygonal wooden building with three galleries surrounding an open yard. From one side of the polygon extended a thrust stage. The Theatre is said to have cost £700 to construct, which is a considerable sum for the age.[12]

text: The open yard in front of the stage was cobbled and provided standing room for those who paid a penny. For another penny, the attendees were allowed into the galleries where they could either stand or, for a third penny, procure a stool. One of the galleries, though sources do not state which, was divided into small compartments that could be used by the wealthy and aristocrats. The playhouse was a timber building with a tile roof; other materials used to construct the Theatre were brick, sand, lime, lead, and iron. Owing to a lack of paperwork not much is truly known about the Theatre’s appearance, but it has been described as an "amphitheater".[6]

text: The Theatre opened in the autumn of 1576, possibly as a venue for Leicester's Men, the acting company of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester of which James Burbage was a member. In the 1580s the Admiral's Men, of which James Burbage's son, Richard was a member, took up residence. After a disagreement between the company and young Burbage, most of the company left for the Rose Theatre which was under the management of Philip Henslowe.

text: In 1594, Richard Burbage became the leading actor of the Lord Chamberlain's Men which performed at The Theatre until 1597. Poet, playwright and actor William Shakespeare was also in the employ of the Company and some of his early plays had their première at The Theatre. "At Christmas 1594 [Richard] was summoned with two other members of his company, William Kempe and William Shakespeare, to act before the queen at Greenwich Palace...Numerous performances before Queen Elizabeth followed, and Shakespeare doubtless often accompanied Burbage on many subsequent professional visits to one or other of the royal palaces."[3] Richard's most noted role is—which holds close to his namesake—his part as Richard in Shakespeare's Richard III. After the Burbages stripped The Theatre of its materials to erect The Globe, many of Shakespeare's plays were performed the famous theatre in the summer, and the Blackfriars house, another of the Burbage's theatres, was used as a winter playhouse.[3]

text: Towards the end of 1596, problems arose with the property's landlord, Giles Allen. Consequently, in 1597, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were forced to stop playing at the Theatre and moved to the nearby Curtain. The lease had been granted to Richard Burbage and his brother Cuthbert Burbage upon the death of their father. The lease that the late James Burbage had obtained from Allen in 1576 was to last only twenty years, but when that day did come, in 1596, Allen "stipulated that the playhouse should only be applied to theatrical purposes for another five years. This stipulation was contested by Burbage, and he and his sons began a harassing lawsuit with Allen. But before the dispute had gone very far Burbage died (in the spring of 1597)and the suit was continued by his sons Richard and Cuthbert."[3] The sight of the deserted Theatre prompted these lines from a minor satirist of the day:

text:
...But see yonder,
One like the unfrequented Theatre
Walks in dark silence and vast solitude.[13]

text: Brayne's widow, Margaret, and former business partner, Robert Myles, filed a lawsuit against the Burbages after Brayne's death in 1586. When Brayne passed the Burbages halted their payments to Margaret for their debt. When they filed lawsuit, Margaret and Robert showed up at The Theatre demanding half of everything inside of it—in disagreement, Richard Burbage physically assaulted Robert Myles, and Robert and Margaret left empty handed. However, this was not the end as Myles attempted to bring down the Burbages in another two lawsuits, which both ended in failure. "The old disputes of the Theatre were overtaken by the new litigation of the Alleyns-the original owners, when the Burbages dismantled the Theatre and rebuilt it as the Globe." [14] At the time of Margaret Brayne's death there were still lawsuits that had not been settled, and in her last will and testament she left all of her prospective winnings to Robert Myles.[6]

text: Though Giles Allen was the landlord John Hyde legally owned the lease to the Theatre and would return the lease to Richard and Cuthbert Burbage and Margaret Brayne for the sum of £30. Cuthbert then went to Walter Cope, a trusted business man, and had Cope ask Hyde if Cuthbert could outright pay for the lease and own it himself. Cuthbert paid and outright owned the lease now, ultimately squeezing Margaret Brayne out of the business. They justified this by stating that now that the lease was in Cuthbert’s name and no longer in James’ name John Brayne had no dealings with the Theatre and therefore neither did Margaret Brayne.[6]

text: This state of affairs forced the Burbage brothers to take drastic action to save their investment. In defiance of the landlord and with the help of their friend and financial backer William Smith, chief carpenter Peter Street and ten or twelve workmen, they dismantled the theatre on the night of 28 December 1598 and moved the structure piecemeal to Street's yard near to Bridewell. With the onset of more favourable weather in the following spring, the material was ferried over the Thames to reconstruct it as The Globe.[15][16] Giles Allen then sued Peter Street in January 1599 for trespassing on the property of the Theatre, stating that Street had no right to dismantle the Theatre and move the supplies. He also attempted to sue Cuthbert and Richard Burbage for trespassing.[6]

text: Archaeological investigation[edit]

text: In August 2008 archaeologists from the Museum of London excavating in New Inn Broadway, Shoreditch, announced they had found the foundation of a polygonal structure they believed to be the remains of the north-eastern corner of The Theatre.[17][18] The site is to be used to build a new theatre for the Tower Theatre Company.[19] The Theatre and Shakespeare's involvement with it are commemorated by two plaques on 86–90 Curtain Road,[20] the building at the corner with New Inn Yard currently occupied by a Foxtons office. A surviving fragment of the original wall will be retained in the new theatre.[21]


document_title: Tuileries Palace

question_text: where did the king of france live before versailles

text: Tuileries Palace

text: History[edit]

text: After the accidental death of Henry II of France in 1559, his widow Catherine de' Medici (1519–1589) planned a new palace. She sold the medieval Hôtel des Tournelles, where her husband had died, and began building the palace of Tuileries in 1564, using architect Philibert de l'Orme. The name derives from the tile kilns or tuileries which had previously occupied the site. The palace was formed by a range of long, narrow buildings. During the reign of Henry IV (1589–1610), the building was enlarged to the south, so it joined the long riverside gallery, the Grande Galerie, which ran all the way to the older Louvre Palace in the east.

text: Louis XIV[edit]

text: During the reign of Louis XIV major changes were made to the Tuileries Palace. From 1659 to 1661 it was extended to the north by the addition of the Théâtre des Tuileries.[1] From 1664 to 1666 the architect Louis Le Vau and his assistant François d'Orbay made other significant changes. They transformed Philibert de l'Orme's facades and central pavilion, replacing its grand central staircase with a colonnaded vestibule on the ground floor and the Salle des Cents Suisses (Hall of the Hundred Swiss Guards) on the floor above and adding a rectangular dome. A new grand staircase was installed in the entrance of the north wing of the palace, and lavishly decorated royal apartments were constructed in the south wing. The king's rooms were on the ground floor, facing toward the Louvre, and the queen's on the floor above, overlooking the garden. At the same time, Louis' gardener, André Le Nôtre, redesigned the Tuileries gardens. The Court moved into the Tuileries Palace in November 1667, but left in 1672, and soon thereafter went to the Palace of Versailles.[2] The Tuileries Palace was virtually abandoned and used only as a theatre, but its gardens became a fashionable resort of Parisians.

text: Louis XV[edit]

text: The boy-king Louis XV was moved from Versailles to the Tuileries Palace on 1 January 1716, four months after ascending to the throne. He moved back to Versailles on 15 June 1722, three months before his coronation. Both moves were made at the behest of the Regent, the duc d'Orléans. The king also resided at the Tuileries for short periods during the 1740s.[3]

text: Louis XVI[edit]

text: On 6 October 1789, during the French Revolution, Louis XVI and his family were forced to leave Versailles and brought to the Tuileries where they were kept under surveillance. For the next two years the palace remained the official residence of the king.

text: On 9 November 1789, the National Constituent Assembly, formerly the Estates-General of 1789, had moved its deliberations from the tennis court at Versailles to the Tuileries, following the removal of the court to Paris. The Tuileries' covered riding ring, the Salle du Manège (which ran along the north end of the Tuileries Gardens to the west of the palace), home to the royal equestrian academy, provided the largest indoor space in the city.

text: The royal family tried to escape after dark, on 20 June 1791, but were captured at Varennes and brought back to the Tuileries. The following year, on 10 August 1792, the palace was stormed by an armed mob, which overwhelmed and massacred the Swiss Guard as the royal family fled through the gardens and took refuge with the Legislative Assembly. The Paris National Guard defended the King, but the daughter of King Louis XVI claimed that many of the guard were already in favor of the revolution.[4]

text: In November 1792, the Armoire de fer incident took place at the Tuileries palace. This was the discovery of a hiding place at the royal apartments, believed to contain the secret correspondence of Louis XVI with various political figures. The incident created a considerable scandal that served to discredit the King.

text: Revolutionary France[edit]

text: The Tuileries accommodated the Constituent Assembly, its successor, the National Convention, and, in 1795, the Council of Five Hundred (Conseil des Cinq-Cents) of the Directoire until the body moved to the Palais-Bourbon in 1798. In 1799, the Jacobin Club du Manège had its headquarters there. The Committee of Public Safety met in the Pavillon de Flore. A courtier of a later era could summon up nightmarish visions of the palace's Salle de Spectacle, or theater, where many Convention sessions were held during the Reign of Terror:

text: At night a single lamp illumined this huge deserted hall, peopled with terrible memories. These I would often muse over as I stopped at the spot once occupied by the chair of the president, where Boissy d'Anglas had saluted the bleeding head of Feraud, and where Thuriot had listened impassively to the outburst of Robespierre at bay: "President of assassins, once more I ask your ear !" I saw in imagination the "Mountain," the "Plain," the "Marsh," and the crowded tribunes; I fancied I could hear the shrieking clamour of the "tricoteuses" and the drums of the "sections" hastening to the attack or to the rescue of the Assembly; and I would call up one or other of the acts of the mighty drama of which this sinister hall has been the scene.

text: Napoleon[edit]

text: When Napoleon Bonaparte came into power in 1799, he made the Tuileries the official residence of the First Consul and, later, the imperial palace. In 1808, Napoleon began constructing the northern gallery which also connected to the Louvre, enclosing a vast square (place).

text: As Napoleon I's chief residence, the Tuileries Palace was redecorated in the Neoclassical Empire style by Percier and Fontaine and some of the best known architects, designers, and furniture makers of the day.

text: In 1809, Jacob-Desmalter, principal supplier of furniture to the Emperor, began work on a jewel cabinet designed for the Empress Joséphine's great bedroom in the Tuileries (and soon to be used by Marie-Louise). Designed by the architect Charles Percier, this impressive piece of furniture was embellished with several gilt-bronze ornaments: the central panel depicts the "Birth of the Queen of the Earth to whom Cupids and Goddesses hasten with their Offerings" by the bronzier Pierre-Philippe Thomire, after a bas-relief by Chaudet. Jacob-Desmalter completed the "great jewelry box" in 1812, with two smaller items of furniture in the same style but using woods from rainforests in China.

text: After Napoléon's divorce, Pierre Paul Prud'hon was commissioned to design the apartments of his new wife, Marie-Louise. For the bridal suite of the new Empress he designed all the furniture and interior decorations in a Greek Revival style.

text: Restoration[edit]

text: The Tuileries Palace became the royal residence at the time of the Bourbon Restoration from 1814 to 1830. During the July Revolution of 1830, the palace was attacked for a third time by an armed mob and occupied. The Swiss Guards stationed at the palace, aware of what had happened in 1792 to their predecessors, abandoned the palace. King Louis Philippe I took up permanent residence there until 1848, when it was again invaded on 24 February.

text: After the coup d'état by Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte in 1852, the Tuileries Palace served as the official residence of the executive branch of government, and when President Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte became Emperor Napoléon III, he moved from his office at the Élysée Palace to the Tuileries.

text: The Second Empire[edit]

text: During the Second Empire, the Tuileries was extensively refurbished and redecorated after the looting and damage that occurred during the Revolution of 1848. Some imposing state rooms were designed and richly decorated, serving as the center stage of the ceremonies and pageantry of the Second Empire, such as on the occasion of Queen Victoria's state visit to France in 1855. The Second Empire also completed the northern wing of the Louvre along the rue de Rivoli, linking the Tuileries Palace with the rest of the Louvre, and thus finally achieving the huge complex of the Louvre-Tuileries, whose master plan had been envisioned three centuries earlier. Previously, the Place du Carrousel had been swept clear of the old houses that had encroached on it.

text: The prominent roof-lines of the palace and especially its squared central dome were influential prototypes in the Second Empire style adopted for hotels and commercial buildings as well as residences in the United Kingdom and North America.

text: Interior[edit]

text: The private apartment used by Napoleon III, on the ground floor of the southern wing of the palace, consisted of "overheated gilt boxes furnished in the style of the First Empire", being kept at "an excessively high temperature" by the emperor. Empress Eugénie had her apartment above, connected to the emperor's by a winding staircase, with a mezzanine occupied by the treasurer of the privy purse in between, and comprising eight of the eleven rooms on the bel etage of the southern wing's garden side. This arrangement at the Tuileries was unlike at Versailles, where the apartments of monarch and consort were both on the same floor and the king's was the grander of the two. [7]

text: The state rooms – on the Carrousel, or east, side – of the south wing were used variously depending on the occasion. If it were an informal dinner, the household would gather in the Private Drawing Room, or Salon d'Apollon, which was separated from the Salle de Maréchaux, in the central pavilion, by the First Consul's Room, or Salon Blanc. The party would proceed through the throne room to dinner in the Salon Louis XIV. However, gala dinners were held in the larger Galerie de Diane, the southernmost of the state apartments. If it were a state ball, then refreshments would be set up in the Galerie; and the procession of the imperial party would be from there to the Salle de Maréchaux, which occupied the space of two entire floors of the central Pavillon de L'Horloge and served as the ballroom. [7]

text: The little-used northern wing of the palace, which contained the chapel, Galerie de la Paix, and the Salle de Spectacle would be called into service only for performances, such as the Auber cantata performed the evening of Napoleon and Eugénie's civil wedding ceremony, 29 July 1853, [8] or for the most important fêtes, such as the party given for sovereigns attending the International Exposition, on 10 June 1867. The Salle de Spectacle was also used as a hospital during the Franco-Prussian War. [5]

text: The southernmost pavilion, the Pavillon de Flore, served as the backstairs to the palace. Service corridors led to it. One could get from there to the sprawling basement, lit with innumerable gas lamps, where a railway had been set up to bring food from the kitchens under the Rue de Rivoli. [9]

text: Destruction of the Tuileries[edit]

text: The finalization of the long planned Louvre-Tuileries complex was not to happen. On 23 May 1871, during the suppression of the Paris Commune, 12 men under the orders of Jules Bergeret, the former chief military commander of the Commune, set the Tuileries on fire at 7 p.m., using petroleum, liquid tar and turpentine. The fire lasted 48 hours and thoroughly gutted the palace, except for the southernmost part, the Pavillon de Flore[10] (the gate of honor, the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, also remains, as well as the foundation[11]). The dome itself was blown up by explosives placed in the central pavilion and detonated by the converging fires. Observing this, Bergeret sent a note to the Committee of Public Safety: 'The last vestiges of Royalty have just disappeared. I wish that the same may befall all the public buildings of Paris'[12] It was only on 25 May that the Paris fire brigades and the 26th battalion of the Chasseurs d'Afrique managed to put out the fire. The library and other portions of the Louvre were also set on fire by Communards and entirely destroyed. The museum itself was only miraculously saved.

text: The ruins of the Tuileries stood on the site for 11 years. Although the roofs and the inside of the palace had been utterly destroyed by the fire, the stone shell of the palace remained intact and restoration was possible. Other monuments of Paris also set on fire by Communards, such as the City Hall, were rebuilt in the 1870s. After much hesitation, the Third Republic eventually decided not to restore the ruins of the Tuileries, which had become a symbol of the former royal and imperial regimes. However, the portions of the Louvre that had also been destroyed by fire were rebuilt in their original style.

text: Demolition[edit]

text: In 1882, the French National Assembly voted for the demolition of the ruins, which were sold to a private entrepreneur for the sum of 33,300 gold francs (approximately US$130,000 in 2005[citation needed]), despite the protests of Baron Haussmann and other members of French artistic and architectural circles, who opposed what they thought was a crime against French arts and history. The demolition was started in February 1883 and completed on 30 September 1883. Bits of stone and marble from the palace were sold by a private entrepreneur, Achille Picart, as souvenirs, and even to build a castle in Corsica, near Ajaccio, the Château de la Punta (fr),[13] which is essentially a reconstruction of the Pavillon de Bullant. The courtyard pediment of the central pavilion can be seen in Paris' Georges Cain square (fr), some courtyard is in the garden of the Trocadero. Other pieces are in the Louvre, the Museum of Decorative Arts, and at schools of architecture, fine arts, and bridges and roads.[14]

text: Tuileries Garden and the Axe historique[edit]

text: When the large empty space between the northern and southern wings of the Louvre now familiar to modern visitors was revealed in 1883, for the first time the Louvre courtyard opened into an unbroken Axe historique. The Tuileries Garden (French: Jardin des Tuileries) is surrounded by the Louvre (to the east), the Seine (to the south), the Place de la Concorde (to the west) and the Rue de Rivoli (to the north).

text: The straight line which runs through the Place de la Concorde and the Arc de Triomphe to La Défense was originally centred on the façade of the Tuileries, a similar line leading across the entrance court of the Louvre. As the two façades were placed at slightly differing angles, this has resulted in a slight 'kink' on the site of the palace a feature ultimately dictated by the curved course of the River Seine.

text: Tuileries Garden[edit]

text: The Tuileries Garden covers about 63 acres (25 hectares) and still closely follows a design laid out by the royal landscape architect André Le Nôtre in 1664. His spacious formal garden plan drew out the perspective from the reflecting pools one to the other in an unbroken vista along a central axis from the west façade, which has been extended as the Axe historique.

text: The Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume is a museum of contemporary art located in the northwest corner of the gardens.

text: Rebuilding the Tuileries Palace[edit]

text: Since 2003, the Comité national pour la reconstruction des Tuileries[15][16] has been proposing to rebuild the Tuileries Palace. This effort is similar to the proposal of reconstruction of the Berliner Stadtschloss (Berlin City Palace). There are several reasons for rebuilding the Palace of the Tuileries. Ever since the destruction of 1883, the famous perspective of the Champs-Élysées, which ended on the majestic façade of the Tuileries Palace, now ends at the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, formerly centered on the Tuileries but now occupying a large empty space. The Louvre, with its pyramid on the one hand, and the Axe historique of the Place de la Concorde-Champs-Élysées-Arc de Triomphe on the other, are not aligned on the same axis.

text: The Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel fortuitously stands near the intersection of the two axes. The Palace of the Tuileries, which was located at the junction of these two diverging axes, helped to disguise this bending of the axes. Architects argue that the rebuilding of the Tuileries would allow the re-establishment of the harmony of these two different axes. The Tuileries Gardens would also recover their purpose, which was to be a palace garden.

text: Also, it is emphasized that the Musée du Louvre needs to expand its ground plan to properly display all its collections, and if the Tuileries Palace were rebuilt the Louvre could expand into the rebuilt palace. It's also proposed to rebuild the state apartments of the Second Empire as they stood in 1871. All the plans of the palace and many photographs are stored at the Archives nationales. Furthermore, all the furniture and paintings from the palace survived the 1871 fire because they had been removed in 1870 at the start of the Franco-Prussian War and stored in secure locations.

text: Today, the furniture and paintings are still deposited in storehouses and are not on public display due to the lack of space in the Louvre. It is argued that recreating the state apartments of the Tuileries would allow the display of these treasures of the Second Empire style which are currently hidden.

text: Cost[edit]

text: In 2006 a rebuilding of the Palace of the Tuileries was estimated to cost 300 million euros (US$380 million). The plan was to finance the project by public subscription with the work being undertaken by a private foundation, with the French government spending no money on the project. The French president at that time, Jacques Chirac, called for a debate on the subject. Former president Charles de Gaulle had also supported reconstruction, saying that it would "make a jewel of the centre of Paris."[11]

text: Gallery[edit]

text:
The vast complex formed by the Tuileries Palace and the Louvre Palace.

State rooms of the Tuileries Palace before 1871 - Salon Louis XIV

Great staircase

Tuileries Palace before 1871 - View from the Tuileries Gardens

Princess Marie of Orléans in her studio in the Tuileries Palace (by Prosper Lafaye (fr), c. 1842)

Stool from the former Palais des Tuileries by François-Honoré-Georges Jacob-Desmalter, Paris around 1810


document_title: List of Washington Capitals seasons

question_text: when is the last time the capitals made it to the stanley cup

text: List of Washington Capitals seasons

text: Table key[edit]

text:
Key of colors and symbols

Color/symbol
Explanation

Stanley Cup champions

Conference champions

Division champions

Led league in points

text:
Key of terms and abbreviations

Term or abbreviation
Definition

Finish
Final position in division standings

GA
Goals against (goals scored by the Capitals' opponents)

GF
Goals for (goals scored by the Capitals)

GP
Number of games played

L
Number of losses

OT
Number of losses in overtime (since the 1999–2000 season)

Pts
Number of points

T
Number of ties

W
Number of wins

—
Does not apply

text: Year by year[edit]

text:
Year by year listing of all seasons played by the Washington Capitals

NHL season
Capitals season
Conference
Division
Regular season[4][5]
Postseason

Finish
GP
W
L
T
OT
Pts
GF
GA
GP
W
L
GF
GA
Result

1974–75
1974–75
Wales
Norris
5th
80
8
67
5
—
21
181
446
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1975–76
1975–76
Wales
Norris
5th
80
11
59
10
—
32
224
394
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1976–77
1976–77
Wales
Norris
4th
80
24
42
14
—
62
221
307
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1977–78
1977–78
Wales
Norris
5th
80
17
49
14
—
48
195
321
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1978–79
1978–79
Wales
Norris
4th
80
24
41
15
—
63
273
338
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1979–80
1979–80
Wales
Patrick
5th
80
27
40
13
—
67
261
293
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1980–81
1980–81
Wales
Patrick
5th
80
26
36
18
—
70
286
317
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1981–82
1981–82
Wales
Patrick
5th
80
26
41
13
—
65
319
338
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1982–83
1982–83
Wales
Patrick
3rd
80
39
25
16
—
94
306
283
4
1
3
11
19
Lost Division Semifinals to New York Islanders, 1–3[6]

1983–84
1983–84
Wales
Patrick
2nd
80
48
27
5
—
101
308
226
8
4
4
28
25
Won Division Semifinals vs. Philadelphia Flyers, 3–0
Lost Division Finals to New York Islanders, 1–4[7]

1984–85
1984–85
Wales
Patrick
2nd
80
46
25
9
—
101
322
240
5
2
3
12
14
Lost Division Semifinals to New York Islanders, 2–3[8]

1985–86
1985–86
Wales
Patrick
2nd
80
50
23
7
—
107
315
272
9
5
4
36
24
Won Division Semifinals vs. New York Islanders, 3–0
Lost Division Finals to New York Rangers, 2–4[9]

1986–87
1986–87
Wales
Patrick
2nd
80
38
32
10
—
86
285
278
7
3
4
19
19
Lost Division Semifinals to New York Islanders, 3–4[10]

1987–88
1987–88
Wales
Patrick
2nd
80
38
33
9
—
85
281
249
14
7
7
54
50
Won Division Semifinals vs. Philadelphia Flyers, 4–3
Lost Division Finals to New Jersey Devils, 3–4[11]

1988–89
1988–89
Wales
Patrick
1st
80
41
29
10
—
92
305
259
6
2
4
18
25
Lost Division Semifinals to Philadelphia Flyers, 2–4[12]

1989–90
1989–90
Wales
Patrick
3rd
80
36
38
6
—
78
284
275
15
8
7
49
48
Won Division Semifinals vs. New Jersey Devils, 4–2
Won Division Finals vs. New York Rangers, 4–1
Lost Conference Finals to Boston Bruins, 0–4[13]

1990–91
1990–91
Wales
Patrick
3rd
80
37
36
7
—
81
258
258
11
5
6
29
35
Won Division Semifinals vs. New York Rangers, 4–2
Lost Division Finals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 1–4[14]

1991–92
1991–92
Wales
Patrick
2nd
80
45
27
8
—
98
330
275
7
3
4
27
25
Lost Division Semifinals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 3–4[15]

1992–93
1992–93[a]
Wales
Patrick
2nd
84
43
34
7
—
93
325
286
6
4
2
15
23
Lost Division Semifinals to New York Islanders, 2–4[16]

1993–94
1993–94
Eastern[b]
Atlantic
3rd
84
39
35
10
—
88
277
263
11
5
6
32
32
Won Conference Quarterfinals vs. Pittsburgh Penguins, 4–2
Lost Conference Semifinals to New York Rangers, 1–4[17]

1994–95
1994–95[c]
Eastern
Atlantic
2nd
48
22
18
8
—
52
136
120
7
3
4
10
17
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 3–4[18]

1995–96
1995–96
Eastern
Atlantic
4th
82
39
32
11
—
89
234
204
6
2
4
17
21
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 2–4[19]

1996–97
1996–97
Eastern
Atlantic
5th
82
33
40
9
—
75
214
231
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1997–98
1997–98
Eastern
Atlantic
3rd
82
40
30
12
—
92
219
202
21
12
9
53
44
Won Conference Quarterfinals vs. Boston Bruins, 4–2
Won Conference Semifinals vs. Ottawa Senators, 4–1
Won Conference Finals vs. Buffalo Sabres, 4–2
Lost Stanley Cup Finals to Detroit Red Wings, 0–4[20]

1998–99
1998–99
Eastern
Southeast[g]
3rd
82
31
45
6
—
68
200
218
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

1999–2000
1999–2000
Eastern
Southeast
1st
82
44
24
12
2[d]
102
227
194
5
1
4
6
15
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 1–4[21]

2000–01
2000–01
Eastern
Southeast
1st
82
41
27
10
4
96
233
211
6
2
4
10
14
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 2–4[22]

2001–02
2001–02
Eastern
Southeast
2nd
82
36
33
11
2
85
228
240
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

2002–03
2002–03
Eastern
Southeast
2nd
82
39
29
8
6
92
224
220
6
2
4
15
14
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Tampa Bay Lightning, 2–4[23]

2003–04
2003–04
Eastern
Southeast
5th
82
23
46
10
3
59
186
253
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

2004–05[e]
2004–05
Eastern
Southeast
Season cancelled due to 2004–05 NHL lockout

2005–06
2005–06
Eastern
Southeast
5th
82
29
41
—[f]
12
70
237
306
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

2006–07
2006–07
Eastern
Southeast
5th
82
28
40
—
14
70
235
286
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

2007–08
2007–08
Eastern
Southeast
1st
82
43
31
—
8
94
242
231
7
3
4
20
23
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Philadelphia Flyers, 3–4[24]

2008–09
2008–09
Eastern
Southeast
1st
82
50
24
—
8
108
272
245
14
7
7
41
38
Won Conference Quarterfinals vs. New York Rangers, 4–3
Lost Conference Semifinals to Pittsburgh Penguins, 3–4[25]

2009–10
2009–10
Eastern
Southeast
1st
82
54
15
—
13
121
318
233
7
3
4
22
20
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to Montreal Canadiens, 3–4[26]

2010–11
2010–11
Eastern
Southeast
1st
82
48
23
—
11
107
224
197
9
4
5
23
24
Won Conference Quarterfinals vs. New York Rangers, 4–1
Lost Conference Semifinals to Tampa Bay Lightning, 0–4[27]

2011–12
2011–12
Eastern
Southeast
2nd
82
42
32
—
8
92
222
230
14
7
7
28
30
Won Conference Quarterfinals vs. Boston Bruins, 4-3
Lost Conference Semifinals to New York Rangers, 3–4[28]

2012–13[h]
2012–13
Eastern
Southeast
1st
48
27
18
—
3
57
149
130
7
3
4
13
15
Lost Conference Quarterfinals to New York Rangers, 3–4[29]

2013–14
2013–14
Eastern
Metropolitan[i]
5th
82
38
30
—
14
90
235
240
—
—
—
—
—
Did not qualify

2014–15
2014–15
Eastern
Metropolitan
2nd
82
45
26
—
11
101
242
203
14
7
7
28
28
Won First Round vs. New York Islanders, 4–3
Lost Second Round to New York Rangers, 3–4[30]

2015–16
2015–16
Eastern
Metropolitan
1st
82
56
18
—
8
120
252
193
12
6
6
29
22
Won First Round vs. Philadelphia Flyers, 4–2
Lost Second Round to Pittsburgh Penguins, 2–4[31]

2016–17
2016–17
Eastern
Metropolitan
1st
82
55
19
—
8
118
263
182
13
7
6
36
34
Won First Round vs. Toronto Maple Leafs, 4–2
Lost Second Round to Pittsburgh Penguins, 3–4

2017–18
2017–18
Eastern
Metropolitan
1st
82
49
26
—
7
105
259
239
24
16
8
86
61
Won First Round vs. Columbus Blue Jackets 4–2
Won Second Round vs. Pittsburgh Penguins 4–2
Won Conference Finals vs. Tampa Bay Lightning 4–3
Won Stanley Cup Finals vs. Vegas Golden Knights 4–1

Totals[32][33]
3426
1575
1406
303
142
3595
10750
10861
275
132
143
793
776

text: Notes[edit]

text:
a In 1992, the NHL expanded the season to 84 games, and each team played two games at a neutral site. After the 1995 lockout, the neutral site games were eliminated, and the season was reduced to 82 games.[34]
b The NHL realigned into Eastern and Western conferences prior to the 1993–94 season.[35] Washington was placed in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference.[36]
c The season was shortened to 48 games because of the 1994–95 NHL lockout.[37]
d Beginning with the 1999–00 season, teams received one point for losing a regular season game in overtime.[38]
e The season was canceled because of the 2004–05 NHL lockout.[39]
f Before the 2005–06 season, the NHL instituted a penalty shootout for regular season games that remained tied after a five-minute overtime period, which prevented ties.[40]
g The NHL added 4 expansion teams prior to the 1998–99 season and split the Eastern Conference into three divisions: Northeast, Atlantic, and Southeast. Washington was moved into the new Southeast division.[41]
h The season was shortened to 48 games because of the 2012–13 NHL lockout.[42]
i The NHL realigned prior to the 2013–14 season. Washington was placed in the Metropolitan Division of the Eastern Conference.[43]


document_title: Steward (office)

question_text: who managed the estate when the lord was away

text: Steward (office)

text: Etymology[edit]

text: From Old English stíweard, stiȝweard, from stiȝ "hall, household" + weard "warden, keeper"; corresponding to Dutch: stadhouder, German Statthalter "place holder", a Germanic parallel to French lieutenant.

text: The Old English term stíweard is attested from the 11th century. Its first element is most probably stiȝ- "house, hall" (attested only in composition; its cognate stiȝu is the ancestor of Modern English sty). Old French estuard and Old Norse stívarðr are adopted from the Old English.

text: The German and Dutch term (Middle High German stat-halter) is a parallel but independent formation (a calque of lieutenant) corresponding to obsolete English stead holder (stede haldare 1456; also stedys beryng (1460), sted-haldande (1375) steadward, steadsman).

text: In medieval times, the steward was initially a servant who supervised both the lord's estate and his household. However over the course of the next century, other household posts arose and involved more responsibilities. This meant that in the 13th century, there were commonly two stewards in each house—one who managed the gang estate and the other, the majordomo, to manage domestic routine. Stewards commonly earned up to 3 to 4 pounds per year. Stewards took care of their lord's castles when they were away. Also, stewards checked on the taxes of the serfs on his lord's manor.

text: British Isles[edit]

text: The Lord High Steward of England held a position of power in the 12th to 14th centuries, and the Lord Steward is the first dignitary of the court. The Stewart family traces its appellation to the office of the High Steward of Scotland. Lord High Steward of Ireland is a hereditary office held since the 15th century.

text: Low Countries[edit]

text: In the Netherlands, it developed into a rare type of de facto hereditary head of state of the thus crowned Dutch Republic.

text: Stadtholders were appointed by feudal lords to govern parts of their territory. Stadtholders could be appointed for the whole or parts of their territory by the local rulers of the independent provinces in the Low Countries, e.g. the Duke of Gelre appointed a stadtholder to represent him in Groningen. In the Low Countries (which included present-day Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) from the Middle Ages to the 18th century, this was originally an essentially honorary title awarded by the Spanish Habsburg kings to major noblemen in each province. But its nature changed drastically.

text: Northern Europe[edit]

text: Danish Statholder[edit]

text: In Denmark, a ministerial high office of royal governor in the capital, at Copenhagen Castle

text: Norwegian Statholder[edit]

text: In Norway the office of Statholder existed both during the Dano-Norwegian personal union from 1536 to 1814 and during the Swedish-Norwegian personal union from 1814 until it was abolished in 1905. During the latter, the office was also known as Rigsstatholder, i.e. Lieutenant of the Realm. The Statholder governed Norway on behalf of the King. As Norway was a separate kingdom with its own laws and institutions, it was arguably the most influential office in both Denmark-Norway and in the Swedish-Norwegian realm second to that of the king. The office was sometimes held by the Crown Prince, who was styled as Viceroy.

text: The term Statholder (from German Statthalter) means "place holder", i.e. the one governing on behalf of the king. The modern Norwegian spelling is stattholder.

text: Southern Europe[edit]

text: Ban of Croatia[edit]

text: The Croatian office of the Ban was equivalent of a viceroy. Ban was appointed by the monarch (King of Croats until 1102, King of Hungary 1102–1526, Austrian ruler 1527–1918) with a mandate to govern a part of country, or whole country, in the name of the King of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia.

text: Ban of Bosnia[edit]

text: Bosnia was a banate of the Kingdom of Hungary 1136–1377. During that period Bosnia was governed by an autonomous hereditary viceroy, called ban. The last of them, Tvrtko, became the first king of the Kingdom of Bosnia.

text: Eastern Europe[edit]

text: The Russian equivalent of "stadtholder" is posadnik; the term sometimes occurs as "stadtholder" in English-language literature. Although there were such legendary posadniks as Gostomysl (9th century), the term first appeared in the Primary Chronicle under the year of 997 to denote the most senior official of an Eastern Slavic town. The earliest posadniks of the city of Novgorod (Holmgard) include a dynasty composed of Dobrynya, his son Konstantin Dobrynich and Ostromir.

text: Freemasonry[edit]

text: The office of Steward or Grand Steward is an elected office of merit in Freemasonry. The main duty of the Steward is to attend on visitors and to assist other Officers in their duties. The Grand Stewards may provide special assistance at Lodge Installations. The Stewards Jewel consists of a cornucopia with compasses above.[1][2]