document_title: 2017 Las Vegas shooting

question_text: who was playing in las vegas when the shooting happened

text: 2017 Las Vegas shooting

text: Background

text: Location

text: The Las Vegas Strip is a stretch of Las Vegas Boulevard immediately south of the city of Las Vegas in Clark County, Nevada. The Strip is known for its concentration of casinos and resort hotels, including the 43-story Mandalay Bay southwest of its intersection with Mandalay Bay Road, in the unincorporated town of Paradise.[2]

text: Las Vegas Village, a 15-acre (6.1-hectare) lot used for outdoor performances, is located diagonally across the intersection to the northeast.[2][3] From 2014 onward, the venue hosted the annual Route 91 Harvest country music festival. The 2017 festival ran from September 29 to October 1, with over 22,000 attendees on the final day.[3][4][a]

text: Perpetrator

text: Stephen Paddock was a 64-year-old former auditor and real estate businessman who had been living 80 miles (130 km) northeast of Las Vegas in a retirement community in Mesquite, Nevada.[5] Paddock was twice divorced, had a long-term girlfriend, and had no known children.[6] He was a son of Benjamin Paddock, a bank robber who was on the FBI's most-wanted list between 1969 and 1977.[6] Paddock's only recorded interactions with law enforcement were traffic citations.[7]

text: Paddock was a high-stakes gambler who placed bets at a high enough level to earn valuable comps—free benefits such as rooms and meals.[8] He was a familiar figure to casino hosts in Las Vegas, but was not well known among other high-stakes gamblers because he mostly played video poker.[8] He reportedly kept to himself and was a heavy drinker.[9] Paddock had lost a significant amount of his wealth over the previous two years,[10] but had paid off all gambling debts before the shooting.[11]

text: Paddock may have considered attacking other events. He had researched large-scale venues in cities such as Boston since at least May 2017,[11] and had reserved a room overlooking the August 2017 Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, but did not use it.[12] According to his girlfriend, she and Paddock were at the Mandalay Bay during an earlier stay a month before the attack when he repeatedly cased out Las Vegas Village from different windows in their room.[13] From September 17, Paddock stayed at The Ogden in Downtown Las Vegas, which overlooked the open-air Life Is Beautiful festival that ran from September 22 to September 24.[13][4] His internet search terms from mid-September included "swat weapons", "ballistics chart 308", "SWAT Las Vegas", and "do police use explosives".[13]

text: Shooting

text: Preparation

text: Paddock arrived at the Mandalay Bay on September 25, 2017. He was booked into Room 32-135, a complimentary room on the 32nd floor.[4][8] Four days later, he also checked into the directly-connected Room 32-134. Both suites overlooked the site of the concert at Las Vegas Village.[4][14][b] Between September 25 and October 1—the day of the shooting—he stockpiled an arsenal of weapons, associated equipment and ammunition that included fourteen AR-15 rifles (twelve of which had bump stocks and 100-round magazines), eight AR-10 rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. Often with the help of hotel bellhops, he brought five suitcases to his room on September 25, seven on the 26th, two on the 28th, six on the 30th, and two on October 1.[15][13][4] Cell phone records also show that he also made multiple visits to his home in Mesquite. On September 30, he placed "Do not disturb" signs on the doors of both rooms.[15] Paddock spent much of his time at the Mandalay Bay before the shooting gambling, often at night. He interacted with Mandalay Bay employees more than ten times during his stay, including twice on the day of the shooting; an MGM Resorts International spokesperson said they were all "normal in nature".[16]

text: Attack

text: The mass shooting occurred between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT on October 1, 2017, which was the third and final night of the festival. When the shooting began, country music singer Jason Aldean was giving the closing performance.[17]

text: Shortly before 10:00 p.m., hotel security guard Jesus Campos was sent to the 32nd floor to investigate an open-door alert. He attempted to open a door that provided immediate access to the floor, but found that it would not open. After Campos entered the floor, he discovered an L-shaped bracket screwed into the door and door frame, which was responsible for barring the door from opening. After reporting the discovery to his dispatch center, he heard the sound of rapid drilling coming from Room 32-135 and went to investigate the matter. At approximately 10:05, he was hit in the right thigh by one of about 200 bullets that Paddock fired through the door of his suite. After Campos was hit, he took cover in the alcove between Rooms 32-122 and 32-124 and immediately informed the hotel by radio and cellphone that he had been shot, though he believed he had been shot with a BB or pellet gun. At the same time, maintenance worker Stephen Schuck was on the same floor to fix the door that Campos had reported as being barricaded. Campos, who was already injured, encountered Schuck and told him to take cover. Schuck contacted hotel dispatchers over his radio, informed them of the ongoing shooting, and told them to call the police.[4][18][19][20][21] Neither Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department nor MGM Resorts International, the Mandalay Bay's owner, have confirmed when information about the initial shooting was relayed to the police.[22][23][24][25]

text:
1

2

3

1

Mandalay Bay hotel

2

Main stage of Route 91 Harvest festival

3

Jet fuel tanks at McCarran International Airport

text: After Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites,[4] he began shooting through them at 10:05 p.m.[26] He ultimately fired more than 1,100 rifle rounds[27] approximately 490 yards (450 m) into the festival audience.[28][29][30][c] He initially started out with a few single gunshots before firing in prolonged bursts.[4] Many people in the crowd initially mistook the gunfire for fireworks.[31] During the shooting, a security fence hindered concertgoers from fleeing the 15-acre concrete lot.[32] The gunfire continued, with some momentary pauses, over the span of ten minutes and ended by 10:15 p.m.[33][34]

text: In addition to shooting at the concertgoers, Paddock fired eight bullets at a large jet fuel tank at McCarran International Airport 2,000 feet (600 m) away.[4] Two of those bullets struck the exterior of the tank, with one bullet penetrating the tank. The fuel did not explode because jet fuel is comprised mostly of kerosene, which is unlikely to ignite when struck by a bullet.[35]

text: During the shooting, police officers were initially confused whether the shots were coming from the Mandalay Bay, the nearby Luxor hotel, or the festival grounds.[32] There were also multiple false reports of additional shooters at other hotels on the Strip.[36] Officers eventually spotted multiple flashes of gunfire in the middle of the northern side of Mandalay Bay and responded to the hotel. At 10:12 p.m., two officers on the 31st floor reported the sounds of gunfire on the floor above them.[32] When officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m. and encountered Campos a minute later, he directed them to Paddock's room and helped others evacuate. Campos was then directed to seek medical attention for himself.[19][21]

text: Between 10:26 and 10:30 p.m., eight additional officers arrived at the 32nd floor; some of those officers manually breached through the door Paddock had screwed shut with the bracket. The gunfire had ceased, and the police moved systematically down the hallway, searching and clearing each room, using a master key that was provided by Campos. At 10:55 p.m., the officers finished evacuating guests. At 11:20 p.m., police breached Room 32-135 with explosives.[4][32][34][37] Paddock was found dead on the floor from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.[38][39] Police then breached Room 32-134; while entering the hotel suite, an officer accidentally fired a three-round burst from his weapon, but the bullets did not hit anyone.[4][40] At 11:27 p.m., officers announced over the police radio that a suspect was down.[34][41]

text: Immediate response

text: Much of Las Vegas Boulevard was closed while police SWAT teams combed the venue and neighboring businesses. McCarran International Airport, adjacent to the shooting site, was shut down for several hours.[42] Approximately 300 people entered the airport property as they fled to safety from the shooting.[31] This prompted officials to shut down all four runways. More than 25 flights were rerouted to ensure that no aircraft would be hit by gunfire,[36] while other flights were canceled before airfield operations resumed at 12:40 a.m. on October 2.[43] At approximately 2:45 p.m. PDT on October 2, a state of emergency was declared in Clark County.[44][45]

text: Early on October 2, Sheriff Lombardo identified the suspect as Stephen Paddock.[46]

text: Casualties

text: Fifty-eight people were shot to death at the music festival; Paddock's suicide was the only death at the Mandalay Bay Hotel.[47][48][49] The fatalities included 36 women and 22 men.[47] The oldest was 67, the youngest 20.[50] Six were from Nevada, 35 from California, 13 from other states, and four from Canada.[51] The Clark County Coroner's Office determined that all 58 victims died as a result of gunshot wounds.[52] Thirty one of the victims were pronounced dead at the scene, while the rest were pronounced dead at hospitals.[11]

text: An additional 851 people were injured, 422 of them with gunshot wounds.[24][53] In the aftermath, many victims were transported to area hospitals, which included University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, and at least one of the six hospitals of Valley Health System.[54][55][56] Sunrise Hospital treated the largest portion of the wounded: 199 patients,[57] 150 of whom arrived within a timespan of about 40 minutes.[58] For reasons that are unclear, most patients were transported to Sunrise, a Level II trauma center. University Medical Center, a nearby Level I trauma center, treated 104 patients.[59] Six victims sought medical treatment in Southern California; UC Irvine Medical Center treated four and Loma Linda University Medical Center treated two.[60]

text: The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States, exceeding the death toll of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, where 49 people were shot and killed.[47][61][62]

text: Aftermath

text: On the morning after the shooting, lines to donate blood in Las Vegas stretched for blocks. Wait times were as much as six hours or more.[63] Millions of dollars have also been raised to help victims and their families.[64]

text: Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval called the shooting "a tragic and heinous act of violence that has shaken the Nevada family".[65] Jason Aldean, who was singing when the shooting started, posted his condolences on Instagram and noted all of those working with him at the show had survived the attack.[66]

text: At a press conference, President Donald Trump described Paddock as "a very very sick individual", and "a demented man, [with] a lot of problems". He added, "the police department has done such an incredible job, and we'll be talking about gun laws as time goes by".[67][68] A White House official talking points memo, distributed to Trump allies, opposed tightening gun control since "new laws won't stop a mad man", but "will curtail the freedoms of law abiding citizens".[69] On October 2, Trump issued a proclamation to honor the victims and their families.[70][71] On October 4, Trump visited the shooting victims and first responders.[72]

text: A unity prayer walk and ceremony was held in Las Vegas on October 7 in honor of the dead. Speakers at the ceremony included Vice President Mike Pence and Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman.[73] On the evening of October 15, thousands participated in a commemorative 3 mile walk between Circus Circus and Mandalay Bay.[74]

text: The annual Rock 'n' Roll Las Vegas Marathon took place on November 12 and was the largest event to be held in the city since the shooting. The event received a massive amount of security, which included 350 officers, counter-sniper surveillance posts, and a number of barriers composed of dump trucks, buses, and other large vehicles.[75]

text: The future of the Las Vegas Village site remains undetermined.[76]

text: Hoaxes

text: In the hours and days after the shooting, false information and fake news about the shooter's identity and motive went viral on social media:

text:
A 4chan /pol/ thread, which misidentified the shooter and described him as a registered Democrat, briefly featured in the "Top Stories" section of a Google search for the man's name. The misinformation was circulated by a number of websites including The Gateway Pundit.[77][78]
The fake news website YourNewsWire spread false information about a second gunman who was shooting from the fourth floor of the hotel.[79]
Two of Facebook's top trending pages were items from Sputnik, a Russian government news agency. These included one story that falsely claimed the FBI had linked the shooter to a terrorist group. The stories were later removed from Sputnik with an apology.[80][81]
Stories linking the shooter to Antifa have also been discredited.[82]
The terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) claimed that Paddock was their "soldier" and that he had answered Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's call to attack coalition countries.[83] ISIS provided no evidence for its claim, and had previously released multiple false claims of responsibility for incidents with which they had no connection.[84][85] On October 9, 2017, the FBI declared that Paddock's attack was not linked to international terrorism.[86]

text: Google and Facebook were criticized for displaying such false news stories in some of their search results.[80][87][88] The two technology companies were said to have failed in their responsibility of keeping false stories from reaching the public.[89] Facebook later said its algorithms were designed to detect and remove false stories, but failed to work adequately in this instance.[87]

text: In the aftermath of the shooting, some media outlets reported that YouTube search results for information about the shooting returned links to conspiracy videos. YouTube stated that it had tweaked its search algorithm to promote news sources which it considered more authoritative.[90][91]

text: Survivors of the shooting have been accused of being paid actors, with some having received death threats on social media.[92]

text: Gun control discussion

text: The shooting prompted support in the U.S. Congress for assault weapons legislation that would ban bump fire stocks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) came out in favor of administrative bump fire stock regulations.[47] Many Congressional Democrats and some Republicans expressed their support of a prohibition of bump fire stocks.[93] Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a Senate bill that gained 39 Democratic co-sponsors. Two bipartisan bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives. As of November, no Congressional action has been taken. House leaders said the issue of bump fire stock regulation should be decided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which originally approved gun-stocks.[94] On November 6, Massachusetts became the first state to ban the sale, possession, or use of the devices.[95]

text: Nine days after the shooting, eighteen Democratic U.S. Senators introduced a bill, the Keep Americans Safe Act, which, if signed into law, would ban gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.[96]

text: Stock prices of firearms manufacturers rose the day after the shooting, as has happened after similar incidents. Investors expect gun sales will increase over concerns that such an event could lead to more stringent gun-control legislation and a rush of customers wishing to defend themselves against future attacks.[97][98]

text: Investigation

text: According to authorities with the Clark County Commissioner, the name "1 October" was declared the official title for investigations into the mass shooting.[99]

text: Early reports

text: Investigators found hidden surveillance cameras that were placed inside and outside the hotel room, presumably so Paddock could monitor the arrival of others.[100] The cameras were not in record mode.[101] Police said a handwritten note found in the room indicated Paddock had been calculating the distance, wind, and trajectory from his 32nd floor hotel suite to the concertgoers he was targeting on the festival lot.[102][103]

text: At a press conference on October 4, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo stated there was evidence—which he declined to discuss—that Paddock intended to escape the scene, and that he may have had assistance from an accomplice.[104] Investigators searched Paddock's room and found a "bulletproof vest" and breathing apparatus, which were survival gear that Paddock never used.[105]

text: There have been several changes in the official account and timeline of Paddock's shooting of hotel security guard Campos. Police officials described these adjustments as "minute changes" that are common in complex investigations.[19]

text: In their first statement about the incident, police officials inaccurately reported that Campos arrived on the scene after Paddock began firing into the crowd. In a second statement, police officials reported, again inaccurately, that Campos was shot six minutes before Paddock began firing into the crowd. That report had been based on a 9:59 p.m. notation in a hotel security log, which in a third statement was determined to have been the time when Campos encountered the barricaded door.[18][20]

text: Sheriff Lombardo dismissed allegations that the changing timeline was the result of some kind of conspiracy between the police department, the FBI, and MGM Resorts International saying, "Nobody is attempting to hide anything in reference to this investigation. The dynamics and the size of this investigation requires us to go through voluminous amounts of information in order to draw an accurate picture."[18]

text: Preliminary investigation

text: Although the investigation remains ongoing, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department released a preliminary report on the event on January 18, 2018.[4]

text: Police speculate that Paddock acted alone and have not determined his motive. No links have been identified to any hate groups, terrorist groups or ideologies, and he did not record a reason for his actions. [106]

text: On February 2, 2018, Douglas Haig, an Arizonan ammunition dealer, was charged in a Nevada federal court with "conspiracy to manufacture and sell armor-piercing ammunition without a license" after his fingerprints were discovered on unfired armor-piercing ammunition inside Paddock's suite.[107]

text: Weaponry

text: Twenty-four firearms, a large quantity of ammunition, and numerous high-capacity magazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds apiece were found in the suite.[1][108][109] Fourteen of the firearms were .223-caliber AR-15-type semi-automatic rifles: three manufactured by Colt, two by Daniel Defense, two by FN Herstal, two by LWRC International, two by POF-USA, one with a .223 Wylde chamber by Christensen Arms, one made-to-order by LMT, and one by Noveske. The others were eight .308-caliber AR-10-type rifles, one .308-caliber Ruger American bolt-action rifle, and one .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 342 revolver.[1][110][111][112] The AR-15 rifles were fitted with vertical forward grips and bump fire stocks,[1][110] the latter of which allowed for recoil to actuate their triggers at a rate of 90 rounds in 10 seconds.[113] The AR-10 rifles were equipped with various telescopic sights and mounted on bipods.[1][114][115] The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that the firearms found in his hotel room, along with more guns found in his homes, had been legally purchased in Nevada, California, Texas, and Utah.[116] In the month preceding the shooting, he had attempted to purchase tracer ammunition, but the gun dealer he approached did not have the item in stock.[117] He bought tracer ammunition from a private seller at a Phoenix, Arizona gun show.[118]

text: During subsequent investigations, ammonium nitrate (often used in improvised explosive devices) was found in the trunk of his Hyundai Tucson SUV, along with 1,600 rounds of ammunition and 50 pounds (23 kg) of Tannerite, a binary explosive used to make explosive targets for gun ranges.[119][120] Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said that while Paddock had "nefarious intent" with the material, he did not appear to have assembled an explosive device.[117][121]


document_title: Chevrolet TrailBlazer

question_text: what engine is in a 2003 chevy trailblazer

root

text: Chevrolet TrailBlazer

text: Blazer trim line (1999–2001)[edit]

text: The TrailBlazer nameplate was introduced in 1999 as an upscale trim line of the Blazer. In 2002, the TrailBlazer turned into a separate model. Production of the Blazer overlapped with the TrailBlazer until 2005, when the 2-door was sold at dealers while the 4-door was fleet only (until the 2004 model year).

tag: p

text: First generation (2002–2009)[edit]

text:
First generation

Overview

Production
U.S.: 2001–2008

Model years
2002–2009 (US only)

Assembly
Moraine, Ohio, United States
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia[1]/[2]/[3]
Valencia, Venezuela

Designer
Bill Davis[4]

Body and chassis

Body style
5-door SUV

Platform
GMT360
GMT370 (EXT)

Related
Buick Rainier
GMC Envoy
Isuzu Ascender
Oldsmobile Bravada
Saab 9-7X
Chevrolet Colorado (2004 – 2012 version)

Powertrain

Engine
4.2 L LL8 I6
5.3 L LM4 V8
6.0 L LS2 V8

Transmission
4-speed automatic 4L60-E and 4L65-E (only with LS2 6.0 liter engine)[5]

Dimensions

Wheelbase
SWB: 113.0 in (2,870 mm)
EXT: 129.0 in (3,277 mm)

Length
SWB: 191.8 in (4,872 mm)
EXT: 207.8 in (5,278 mm)

Width
74.7 in (1,897 mm)

Height
2002–03 SWB: 74.5 in (1,892 mm)
2004–09 SWB: 72.5 in (1,842 mm)
2002–03 EXT: 77.1 in (1,958 mm)
2004–06 EXT: 75.5 in (1,918 mm)
2007–09 2WD: 67.8 in (1,722 mm)

Chronology

Successor
Chevrolet Traverse

tag: table

text: The first-generation 2002–2005 model years TrailBlazer is based on a truck platform called GMT360, with all models having four-wheel drive as an option with both automatic engagement and the more traditional "4 High" and "4 Low" gearings, except the SS model which features an All wheel drive system. The TrailBlazer features an independent front suspension, and a five-link rear suspension. A G80 locking rear differential is available as an option on all models except for the SS which has a G86 LSD standard. An LTZ version, has upgraded interior features (leather), better sound system (Bose), alloy wheels, four-wheel disc brakes. All TrailBlazers came factory equipped with a detachable towing hitch.

text: The TrailBlazer was facelifted in 2005 for the 2006 model year. A new front fascia and interior trim were included with the refresh. The SS gets trim-specific front and rear fascias plus colormatched side skirts.

text: Engines[edit]

text: The TrailBlazer comes with a 273 hp (204 kW) 277 lb⋅ft (376 N⋅m) all-aluminum 4.2 L "Atlas" LL8 inline-six engine standard and an optional 302 hp (225 kW) 330 lb⋅ft (447 N⋅m) aluminum small-block 5.3 L V8 with Active Fuel Management. The inline-six makes the TrailBlazer the most powerful six-cylinder SUV in its class. The Active Fuel Management system on the V8 engine shuts off 4 of the 8 cylinders during highway travel and idle to save fuel. The 6-cylinder versions of the TrailBlazer get up to 20 miles per US gallon (12 L/100 km; 24 mpg‑imp) highway, according to refreshed United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

text: The TrailBlazer won the North American Truck of the Year award in 2002. The 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8 appeared on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list from 2002–2005 with innovative features such as DOHC, Variable Valve Timing (VVT) on the exhaust camshaft, and GM's patented Lost-foam casting process.

text:
2002–2009 LL8 4.2 L I6
2003–2004 LM4 5.3 L V8
2005–2009 LH6 5.3 L V8
2006–2009 LS2 6.0 L V8

tag: ul

text: EXT[edit]

text: One unique element of the TrailBlazer line was the availability of a 3-row, 7-passenger EXT version. This vehicle was 16 in (406 mm) longer and had a higher roofline to allow easier access to the third row of seats. This roof was disguised by standard roof racks.

text: Production of the EXT model was handled by the Oklahoma City Assembly plant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The last TrailBlazer EXT rolled off the assembly line on February 20, 2006, because GM had reportedly closed that plant, making 2006 the final year for the TrailBlazer EXT.

text: The EXT could be identified by its much straighter rear doors (which were not in-line with the rear wheel arches), as well as by the circular, metal cap on each of the quarter windows where the opening mechanism attaches, on the 2003 models only.

text: SS[edit]

text: An SS model was introduced for the 2006 model year. This was the first time a production SUV wore the Super Sport badge.[6] But this wasn't just a styling package: this Trailblazer came standard with a 6.0 L LS2 V8 that was the same engine that came standard in the 2005–2007 C6 Corvette, with different exhaust (more restrictive) and a taller intake that better utilized the torque characteristics of the engine in this heavier vehicle. The suspension was stiffened up and lowered from the factory, it had an added air-leveling system in the rear, and it rode on 20" wheels and 255mm wide tires—all which contributed to much improved handling. All Trailblazer SS's also came from the factory with 4.10 differentials, improving off-the-line acceleration. They were available in both 2WD and AWD configurations. About 1.7% of total Trailblazer production had the B4U SS-package.

text:
Calendar Year
Total Trailblazer SS Sales

2006
9,361

2007
10,726

2008
5,744

2009
610

text: Safety[edit]

text: IIHS tests give early Trailblazers a Marginal overall rating in the frontal offset test while 2005–2009 models get an Acceptable rating. For 2008 models side curtain airbags became standard. The Trailblazer gets a Marginal overall side impact rating - tested with optional side airbags present. Torso type side airbags were unavailable.[7]

text: 2007 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Crash Test Ratings:[8]

text:
Frontal Driver:
Frontal Passenger:
Side Driver:
Side Rear Passenger:
Rollover 2wd:
Rollover 4wd:

text: Yearly American sales[edit]

text:
Calendar Year
Total American sales

2001[9]
115,103

2002
249,568

2003
261,334

2004[10]
283,484

2005
244,150

2006[11]
178,493

2007
151,985

2008[12]
119,905

2009
22,287

text: Discontinuation[edit]

text: The next generation TrailBlazer was to be built on an upgraded version of the current GMT360 platform called the GMT361. It was scheduled to be launched in spring 2007, but in January 2006, GM decided to just refresh the current platform and call the vehicle a GMT360NG. However, in June 2006, GM announced that the GMT360NG program was also canceled due to the large investment. GM decided to keep the current TrailBlazer until the 2009 model year (2008 in Mexico).

text: Buick instead got the Enclave, a GM Lambda platform-based crossover SUV to replace the Rainier (along with the Rendezvous and the Terraza minivan), while GMC got the GM Lambda platform-based crossover SUV Acadia to replace the Envoy. Saab replaced the 9-7X with the Cadillac SRX-based 9-4X, which was discontinued soon after its introduction in 2011.

text: The Trailblazer, along with the Chevrolet Uplander minivan, were replaced by the Chevrolet Traverse. GM had closed the Moraine plant on December 23, 2008, ending production of all GMT360 products.[13] The last Chevrolet TrailBlazer rolled off the Moraine line on December 16, 2008, a week before the plant's closure. The closing of the last factory that manufactured the trucks was the subject of a 2009 HBO documentary The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant.[14]

text: Recall[edit]

text: In 2012, General Motors and Isuzu recalled more than 258,000 SUVs in the U.S. and Canada to fix short-circuits in power window and door lock switches that could cause fires. The recall covered Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, Isuzu Ascender and Saab 9-7X SUVs from the 2006 and 2007 model years. The SUVs were sold or registered in 20 U.S. states, Washington, D.C., and Canada, where salt and other chemicals are used to clear roads in the winter.[15]

text: Second generation (2012–present)[edit]

text:
Second generation

Chevrolet TrailBlazer (second generation)

Overview

Also called
Holden Colorado 7
Holden TrailBlazer
Isuzu MU-X

Production
2012-present

Body and chassis

Class
Full-size SUV

Body style
5-door SUV

Platform
GMT31XX

Powertrain

Engine
2.8 VGT Diesel
2.5 Diesel

Transmission
6-Speed Manual transmission
6-Speed Automatic transmission

text: The second-generation TrailBlazer was unveiled as a concept at the 2011 Dubai Motor Show, and as a production model at the Bangkok Motor Show on March 21, 2012.[16] As is the case with the original Chevrolet Blazer (1969–1994), Tahoe (1995–present), Suburban (1935–present), S10-based Blazer (1983–2005), the second-generation TrailBlazer is based on the truck frame of the 2012 Chevrolet Colorado.

text: The second-generation TrailBlazer is built in Thailand and in Brazil.[17] It is currently being sold in some of the Southeast Asian countries, India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and sold in Australia as the Holden Colorado 7 from 2013 to 2016, being rebadged as the TrailBlazer in 2017. The 2013 Isuzu MU-X also resembles the second generation Chevrolet Trailblazer.[18]

text: Holden Colorado 7[edit]

text: Launched in late 2012 the Holden Colorado 7, like the Chevy TrailBlazer, is based on the same under pinnings as the regular Colorado, however bodywork from the A-pillar back is entirely different. Instead the Colorado 7 takes on the form of a large SUV with an enclosed roof, tailgate and 7-seats. The Colorado 7 is powered by the same VM Motori 2.8L Turbo Diesel engine and unlike the Colorado the rear suspension is a five-link system connected to coil springs but retains the live axle.[19]

text: The range consists of two trim levels; LT and LTZ. Standard equipment for all Colorado 7s includes cruise control, body-coloured bumpers, side steps, front fog lights, aluminium roof rails, rear parking sensors (in addition to the rear camera), Bluetooth phone connectivity, USB input, roof mounted climate control vents for second and third rows and a leather-wrapped steering wheel with multifunction controls. The LTZ adds 18-inch wheels, projector headlights, exterior chrome highlights, leather seats, a premium sounds system, a six-way adjustable driver’s seat, higher grade interior trim elements and LED tail-lights.[19]

text: At its first model update in 2016, the Holden Colorado 7 was renamed to Holden TrailBlazer.[20]

text: Future plans[edit]

text: Chevrolet has discussed re-introducing the Colorado 7 as the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, which is already on sale in other markets globally, but it will not be sold in North America. GM claims that the sales of the Equinox and Traverse would dwindle. However, on November 16, 2015, it did file trademark applications for the Blazer and Chevrolet Blazer in the United States, which could open the door for a next generation successor to the TrailBlazer.[21] On August 22, 2017, spy shot photos confirmed that Chevrolet will use the Blazer nameplate for a midsize crossover SUV (slotted between the full size Traverse and small size Equinox), which is slated to debut in 2018 as a 2019 model year entry, thus putting it in competition with the Ford Edge, Nissan Murano, and a soon to be planned Honda vehicle.[22]

text: Engines[edit]

text: The 2012 Trailblazer comes with two engine options, both diesel, one featuring a Duramax 2.5 L, 150 hp (110 kW) 350 Nm (258 lb-ft) standard, and an optional Duramax 2.8 L, 180 hp (132 kW) 470 Nm (346 lb-ft). For the Brazilian, South African and Saudi markets, the 3.6 V6 24V petrol engine producing 239 hp (in Brazilian market, the 2015 version producing 277 hp) (179 kW) 360 Nm (265 lb-ft) is also available.

text: The 2014 – 2nd generation, MY14 Duramax 2.8L diesel engines have several new parts, namely a new water-cooled variable-geometry turbocharger, a new high-pressure common-rail fuel delivery system, a new Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system, a new intake manifold, a new cylinder head, a new cylinder block, a new balance shaft unit and a new Engine Control Module (ECM). and now produce 197 hp and 500 Nm of torque. [23]


document_title: Supreme Court of India

question_text: which is known as the apex court of india

question_tokens: which is known as the apex court of india

text: Supreme Court of India

text: History[edit]

text: In 1861 the Indian High Courts Act 1861 was enacted to create High Courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns which had acted as the highest court in their respective regions. These new High Courts had the distinction of being the highest Courts for all cases till the creation of Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeal against judgements of the High Courts. The first CJI of India was Shri. H.J.Kania.[4]

text: The Supreme Court of India came into being on 28 January 1950.[5] It replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which were then at the apex of the Indian court system.

text: Supreme Court initially had its seat at Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building where the previous Federal Court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. The first Chief Justice of India was Sir H J Kania. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises.[5] Originally, Constitution of India envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and seven Judges; leaving it to Parliament to increase this number.[6] In formative years, the Supreme Court met from 10 to 12 in the morning and then 2 to 4 in the afternoon for 28 days in a month.[7]

text: Court building architecture[edit]

text: The building is shaped to symbolize scales of justice with its centre-beam being the Central Wing of the building comprising the Chief Justice’s court, the largest of the courtrooms, with two court halls on either side. The Right Wing of the structure has the bar – room, the offices of the Attorney General of India and other law officers and the library of the court. The Left Wing has the offices of the court. In all, there are 15 courtrooms in the various wings of the building.[4][5][8]

text: The foundation stone of the supreme court's building was laid on 29 October 1954 by Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India. The main block of the building has been built on a triangular plot of 17 acres and has been designed in an Indo-British style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar, the first Indian to head the Central Public Works Department.It has a 27.6 metre high dome and a spacious colonnaded verandah. The Court moved into the building in 1958. In 1979, two new wings – the East Wing and the West Wing – were added to the complex. 1994 saw the last extension.[5]

text: Mother and Child Sculpture[edit]

text: On 20 February 1980, a black bronze sculpture of 210-centimeter height was installed in the lawn of the Supreme Court. It portrays Mother India in the form of the figure of a lady, sheltering the young Republic of India represented by the symbol of a child, who is upholding the laws of land symbolically shown in the form of an open book. On the book, a balance beam is shown, which represents dispensation of equal justice to all. The sculpture was made by the renowned artist Chintamoni Kar. The sculpture is just behind the idol of Mahatma Gandhi.

text: Seal[edit]

text: The design of the Court's seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion capital of Asoka with 24 spokes. The inscription in Sanskrit "yatodharmastato jayah"(यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः) means "whence law (dharma), thence victory". It is also referred to – as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity.[4]

text: Constitution of the court[edit]

text: Registry[edit]

text: The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary-General who is assisted by 8 registrars, several additional and deputy registrars, etc., with 1770 employees in all (221 gazetted officers, 805 non-gazetted and 744 Class IV employees)[9] Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court registry.[10][11]

text: Supreme Court advocates[edit]

text: Supreme Court Rules, 2013[12] entitle only those advocates who are registered with the supreme court, called 'Advocates-on-Record' to appear, act and plead for a party in the court. Those advocates who are designated as 'Senior Advocates' by the Supreme Court or any of the High Courts can appear for clients along with an Advocate-on-Record. Any other advocate can appear for a party along with or under instructions from an Advocate-on-Record.

text: Composition[edit]

text: Size of the court[edit]

text: As originally enacted, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges from the original 8 in 1950 to 10 in 1956, 13 in 1960, 17 in 1977, 26 in 1986 and 31 in 2008 (current strength). As the number of the judges has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a division bench) [13]— coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a constitution bench) when required to settle fundamental questions of law. A bench may refer a case before it to a larger bench, should the need arise.[14]

text: Eligibility[edit]

text: A citizen of India not exceeding 65 years age per Article 124 of the constitution who has been

text:
a judge of one high court or more (continuously), for at least five years, or
an advocate there, for at least ten years, or
a distinguished jurist, in the opinion of the president,

text: is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the supreme court.[15]

text: Court demographics[edit]

text:
I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries.

Distinguished former Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia[16][17]

tag: div

text: In practice, judges of the supreme court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely six – Justices S. M. Sikri, S. Chandra Roy, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde, R. F. Nariman, U. U. Lalit and L. Nageswara Rao have been appointed to the supreme court directly from the bar (i.e. who were practising advocates).[18][19]

text: The supreme court saw its first woman judge when Justice M. Fathima Beevi was sworn into office in 1989.[20] The sixth and the most recent woman judge in the court is Justice R. Banumathi.[21][22] In 1968, Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah became the first Muslim Chief Justice of India. In 2000, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalit community. In 2007 he also became the first dalit Chief Justice of India. In 2010, Justice S. H. Kapadia coming from a Parsi minority community became the Chief Justice of India.[16][23] In 2017, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar became the first Sikh Chief Justice of India.

text: Judicial independence[edit]

text: The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. Per Article 50 of directive principles of state policy, the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive. Independence of judiciary, supremacy of the constitution and rule of law are the features of the basic structure of the constitution

text: Appointments and the Collegium[edit]

text: As per the Constitution, as held by the court in the Three Judges Cases – (1982, 1993, 1998), a judge is appointed to the Supreme Court by the President of India on the recommendation of the collegium  — a closed group of the Chief Justice of India, the four most senior judges of the court and the senior-most judge hailing from the high court of a prospective appointee.[24] This has resulted in a Memorandum of Procedure being followed, for the appointments.

text: Judges used to be appointed by the President on the advice of the Union Cabinet. After 1993 (the Second Judges' Case), no minister, or even the executive collectively, can suggest any names to the President,[25][26] who ultimately decides on appointing them from a list of names recommended only by the collegium of the judiciary. Simultaneously, as held in that judgment, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name. However, according to some, the executive has not been diligent in using this power to reject the names of bad candidates recommended by the judiciary.[27][28][29]

text: The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism.[26] In 2015, the Parliament passed a law to replace the collegium with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in the Fourth Judges' Case, as the new system would undermine the independence of the judiciary.[30] Putting the old system of the collegium back, the court invited suggestions, even from the general public, on how to improve the collegium system, broadly along the lines of – setting up an eligibility criteria for appointments, a permanent secretariat to help the collegium sift through material on potential candidates, infusing more transparency into the selection process, grievance redressal and any other suggestion not in these four categories, like transfer of judges.[31] This resulted in the court asking the government and the collegium to finalize the Memorandum of Procedure incorporating the above.[32]

text: Once, in 2009, the recommendation for the appointment of a judge of a high court made by the collegium of that court, had come to be challenged in the supreme court. The court held that who could become a judge was a matter of fact, and any person had a right to question it. But who should become a judge was a matter of opinion and could not be questioned. As long as an effective consultation took place within a collegium in arriving at that opinion, the content or material placed before it to form the opinion could not be called for scrutiny in court.[33]

text: Tenure[edit]

text: Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65. However, there have been suggestions from the judges of the Supreme Court of India to provide for a fixed term for the judges including the Chief Justice of India.[34]

text: Salary[edit]

text: Article 125 of the Indian Constitution leaves it to the Indian Parliament to determine the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court judges. However, the Parliament cannot alter any of these privileges and rights to the judge's disadvantage after his/her appointment.[35] A judge of the Supreme Court draws a salary of ₹90,000 (US$1,400) per month while the Chief Justice earns ₹100,000 (US$1,600) per month.[36]

text: Oath of affirmation[edit]

text: Per Article 124 and third Schedule of the constitution, the Chief Justice (or a Judge) of the Supreme Court of India is required to make and subscribe in the presence of the President an oath or affirmation that he/she

text: will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.

text: Impeachment[edit]

text: Per Article 124(4) of the constitution, President can remove a judge on proved misbehaviour or incapacity when Parliament approves with a majority of the total membership of each house in favour of impeachment and not less than two thirds of the members of each house present. For initiating impeachment proceedings against a judge, at least 50 members of Rajya Sabha or 100 members of Lok Sabha shall issue the notice as per judges (inquiry) act,1968.[37] Then a judicial committee would be formed to frame charges against the judge, to conduct the fair trial and to submit its report to Parliament. When the judicial committee report finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, further impeachment proceedings would be taken up by the Parliament if the Judge is not resigning himself.[38][39]

text: The judge upon proven guilty is also liable for punishment as per applicable laws or for violating the constitution by breaching the oath under disrespecting constitution[40]

text: Post-retirement[edit]

text: A Person who has retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

text: Review petition[edit]

text: Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgements. As per this Article, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.[41]

text: Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

text: Powers to punish for contempt[edit]

text: Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting Minister of the state of Maharashtra, Swaroop Singh Naik,[42] to be jailed for 1-month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006. This was the first time that a serving Minister was ever jailed.[43][44]

text: Rules[edit]

text: The Constitution of India under Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court as and when required (with the approval of the President of India). Accordingly, "Supreme Court Rules, 1950" were framed. The 1950 Rules were replaced by the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.[45] In 2014, Supreme Court notified the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 replacing the 1966 Rules effective from 19 August 2014.[12]

text: Roster System[edit]

text: The Supreme Court decided to follow a new roster system from February 5, 2018 for allocation of matters to judges. Under the new roster system, the CJI will hear all special leave petitions (SLPs), and matters related to public interest, social justice, elections, arbitration, and criminal matters, among others. The other collegium/senior judges to hear matters related to labour disputes, taxation matters, compensation matters, consumer protection matters, maritime law matters, mortgage matters, personal law matters, family law matters, land acquisition matters, service matters, company matters etc.[46]

text: Reporting and citation[edit]

text: Supreme Court Reports is the official journal of Reportable Supreme Court Decisions. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi.[47] In addition, there are many other reputed private journals that report Supreme Court decisions. Some of these other important journals are: SCR (The Supreme Court Reports), SCC(Supreme Court Cases), AIR (All India Reporter), SCALE, etc.

text: Facilities on the campus[edit]

text: Legal-aid,[48][49][50] court-fee vendors, first-aid post, dental clinic, physiotherapy unit and pathology lab; rail-reservation counter, canteen, post office and a branch and 3 ATMs of UCO Bank, Supreme Court Museum[9] can be availed by litigants and visitors.

text: Landmark judgments[edit]

text: Land reform[edit]

text: After some of the courts overturned state laws for redistributing land from zamindar (landlord) estates on the ground that the laws violated the zamindars' fundamental rights, the Parliament passed the 1st amendment to the Constitution in 1951, followed by the 4th amendment in 1955, to uphold its authority to redistribute land. The Supreme Court countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab[51] that the Parliament did not have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, including the provisions on private property. The 25th amendment to the Constitution in 1971 curtailed the right of a citizen to property as a fundamental right and gave authority to the government to infringe private property, which led to a furor amongst the zamindars.

text: Emergency (1975–1977)[edit]

text: The independence of judiciary was severely curtailed[52] during the Indian Emergency (1975–1977) of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under Preventive detention laws passed by the parliament. In the case of Shiva Kant Shukla Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, a bench of five seniormost judges of Supreme court ruled in favour of state's right for unrestricted powers of detention during the emergency. Justices A.N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H. Beg, stated in the majority decision:[53]

text: The only dissenting opinion was from Justice H. R. Khanna, who stated:

text: It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his sister: "I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India."[54] In January 1977, Justice Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the time and thereby Government broke the convention of appointing only the senior most judge to the position of Chief Justice of India. Justice Khanna remains a legendary figure among the legal fraternity in India for this decision.

text: The New York Times, wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian Supreme Court's decision appears close to utter surrender."

text: During the emergency period, the government also passed the 39th amendment, which sought to limit judicial review for the election of the Prime Minister; only a body constituted by Parliament could review this election.[55] Subsequently, the parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the 42nd Amendment which prevented any court from reviewing any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification. A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme court rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in the Minerva Mills case (1980).

text: Post-1980: an assertive court[edit]

text: After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine, created in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in [Minerva Mills v. Union of India].[56]

text: The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment,[57] food and many others. Civil and political rights (traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also been expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for litigation on a number of important issues.

text: Recent important cases[edit]

text: Among the important pronouncements of the Supreme Court post 2000 is the Coelho case I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11 January 2007). A unanimous Bench of 9 judges reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. It held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the Court regards as forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, then the same can be struck down depending upon its impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent power of Parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The judgment in Coelho has in effect restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability of the Constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

text: Another important decision was of the five-judge Bench in Ashoka Kumara Thakur v. Union of India; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the Court refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of review followed by the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007) ([1])

text: 2G spectrum case[edit]

text: The Supreme Court declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary" and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT), the main official accused in the 2G case.[58]

text: Black money[edit]

text: The government refused to disclose details of about 18 Indians holding accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar. The court ordered Special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.[59][60] Lack of enthusiasm made the court create a special investigative team (SIT).[61]

text: Minority reservations[edit]

text: The Supreme Court refused to stay the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement quashing 4.5% sub-quota for minorities under OBC reservation quota of 27%.[62]

text: Online/postal ballot for Indian citizen living abroad (NRIs)[edit]

text: Three judge bench presided by Honorable Chief Justice Altamas Kabir issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (EC) on the PIL filed by a group of NRIs for online/postal ballot for the Indian citizens living abroad.[63][64]

text: Recognition of transgender as 'third gender' in law[edit]

text: In April 2014, Justice KS Radhakrishnan declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law, in a case brought by the National Legal Services Authority (Nalsa) against Union of India and others.[65][66][67] The ruling said:[68]

text: Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society's unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.

text: Justice Radhakrishnan said that transgender people should be treated consistently with other minorities under the law, enabling them to access jobs, healthcare and education.[69] He framed the issue as one of human rights, saying that, "These TGs, even though insignificant in numbers, are still human beings and therefore they have every right to enjoy their human rights", concluding by declaring that:[68]

text: (1) Hijras, eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as "third gender" for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature.

text: (2) Transgender persons' right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender.

text: Relief to over 35,000 public servants[edit]

text: In B.Prabhakara Rao vs. State of A.P. involved sudden reduction in age of superannuation from 58 years to 55 years of over 35,000 public servants of State Government, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, educational institutions and Tirupathi-Tirumalai Devasthanams (TTD). They lost first round of litigation in the Supreme Court. Realising the mistake, fresh legislation was brought restoring the original age of superannuation of 58 years but providing that the benefit of new legislation would not extend to those whose reduction of age of superannuation had been upheld. In challenge to this law, Subodh Markandeya argued that all that was required was to strike down naughty “not” – which found favour with the Supreme Court bringing relief to over 35,000 public servants.[70][71]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: Corruption: 2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,[72] expensive private holidays at the tax payers expense,[73] refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,[74] secrecy in the appointments of judges',[75] to refusal to make information public under the Right to Information Act.[76] The Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his comments on his post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority.[77] He later went back on this stand.[78] The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from former Presidents of India Pratibha Patil and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam for failure in handling its duties.[79] Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.[80]

text: The Cabinet Secretary of the Indian government introduced the Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill 2008 in Parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges.[81][82]

text: Pending cases: According to Supreme Court newsletter, there are 58,519 cases pending in the Supreme Court, out of which 37,385 are pending for more than a year, at the end of 2011. Excluding connected cases, there are still 33,892 pending cases.[83] As per the latest pendency data made available by the Supreme Court, the total number of pending cases in the Supreme Court as on 1 November 2017 is 55,259 which includes 32,160 admission matters (miscellaneous) and 23,099 regular hearing matters.[84] In May, 2014, former Chief Justice of India, Justice R.M. Lodha, proposed to make Indian judiciary work throughout the year (instead of the present system of having long vacations, specially in the higher courts) in order to reduce pendency of cases in Indian courts; however, as per this proposal there is not going to be any increase in the number of working days or working hours of any of the judges and it only meant that different judges would be going on vacation during different periods of the year as per their choice; but, the Bar Council of India rejected this proposal mainly because it would have inconvenienced the advocates who would have to work throughout the year.[85]

text: Rule of law: Supreme Court has not taken up the trail of many pending cases, since April 2014 (more than three years), challenging the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 which was enacted by the Parliament without following the stipulated procedure in the constitution and is claimed detrimental to the basic foundation of the constitution on which the basic structure of the constitution is resting.[86] The basic foundation of the constitution is the dignity and the freedom of its citizens which is of supreme importance and can not be destroyed by any legislation of the parliament.[87] Whereas the fair trial to examine the validity of the ninety-ninth constitutional amendment dated 31 December 2014, to form National Judicial Appointments Commission for the purpose of appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, was conducted on utmost priority and Supreme Court delivered its judgement on 16 October 2015 (within a year) quashing the constitutional amendment as unconstitutional and ultra virus stating the said amendment is interfering with the independence of the judiciary.[88] Disposal of the various petitions filed against Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 is also equally important as it has alienated the basic rights of a vast section of Indian citizens and also against federal character of the constitution which is part of the basic structure of the constitution. The Supreme Court is also wasting its valuable time by not taking up the case in toto but conducted a piecemeal trail by delivering its judgement to dispose the petitions related with apportionment of assets between the newly formed states Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.[89] Supreme Court is also conducting piecemeal trail of the petitions filed by the states regarding water sharing of rivers and bifurcation of the common high court without considering the earlier pending petitions challenging the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 which is the basic cause of all these disputes.[90][91] Under checks and balances as provided in the constitution, it is the duty of the judiciary/Supreme Court to establish the rule of law at the earliest by rectifying any misuse of the constitution by the parliament and the executive without colluding with them and to remove perceptions of people that rule of law is side lined and a section of its citizens are subjected to discrimination.

text: Data base in public domain: Though Supreme Court has started placing all data/records of the cases/petitions in its web site few years back, the system is not yet satisfactory and lacking commitment as the information/data is selectively uploaded or deleted arbitrarily.[92]

text: Four Judges Vs Chief Justice of India: On 12 January 2018, four senior most Supreme Court judges (excluding CJI) conducted a press meeting in an unprecedented event to express their anguish against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for acting arbitrarily and not in a transparent and rational manner in allocation of cases to the benches or the judges.[93] They informed that they had no other way, after exhausting all the internal procedures including a joint letter addressed to CJI, other than informing the citizens of India the sad situation prevailing in the apex court of India by conducting a press conference.[94] This is a glaring misuse of an independent institution / organ of the Indian constitution like Supreme Court whose responsibility is to strive and animate in rendering social, economic and political justice as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution of India and Article 38 (1) of Directive Principles.[95][96]


document_title: Morning Star

question_text: when does venus appear as a morning star

text: Morning Star

text: Astronomy[edit]

text:
Morning star, most commonly used as a name for the planet Venus when it appears in the east before sunrise
Morning star, a name for the star Sirius, which appears in the sky just before sunrise during the Dog Days
Morning star, a (less common) name for the planet Mercury when it appears in the east before sunrise

text: Mythology and theology[edit]

text: Christianity[edit]

text:
Lucifer, a name based on the Latin name for the Morning Star
Jesus, self-described as "the bright Morning Star" in the Christian Bible
John the Baptist, called a "bright morning star" in Eastern Orthodox Church hymnology
Mary the mother of Jesus, called "morning star" in the Litany of Loreto
John Wycliffe, the English theologian, sometimes referred to as the "Morning Star of the Reformation"

text: Other mythologies and theologies[edit]

text:
Phosphorus (morning star), the Morning Star in Greek mythology
Morning Star, one of the Zorya (gods in Slavic mythology)
Morningstar or Red Horn, a culture hero in Siouan oral traditions
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, god of the morning star (Venus) Aztec mythology

text: People[edit]

text:
Morning Star (chief), Northern Cheyenne leader, also known as Dull Knife
Richard Morningstar (born 1945), ambassador, Special Envoy of the United States Secretary of State for Eurasian Energy
Erica Morningstar (born 1989), Canadian swimmer
Chip Morningstar, American author, developer, programmer and designer of software systems

text: Places[edit]

text:
Morning Star Lake (Nebraska)
Morning Star, Virginia, an unincorporated community
Morning Star, West Virginia, an unincorporated community
Morningstar, U.S. Virgin Islands
Morningstar airfield, near Melkbosstrand, Cape Town, Western Cape, Republic of South Africa

text: Transportation[edit]

text: Ships[edit]

text:
HMS Morning Star, six ships of the Royal Navy
Morning Star, original name of the USS Estes (AGC-12), an amphibious force command ship
Morning Star (ship), wrecked in the Torres Strait in 1814
Morning Star, former name of the cruise ship Salamis Glory
Morning Star of Revelation (TS-K182), A British sail-training ketch.
Morning Star, the first Star Ferry in Hong Kong, and several later ferries by the same name in the same fleet

text: In railways[edit]

text:
Morning Star (train), passenger train formerly operated by St. Louis Southwestern Railway
GWR Star Class "Morning Star", broad gauge steam locomotive

text: Businesses and organizations[edit]

text: Businesses[edit]

text:
Morningstar Farms, a brand of vegetarian food
Morning Star Series, a brand of incense
Morningstar Air Express, a cargo airline based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Morningstar, Inc., a Chicago-based investment research firm
The Morning Star Company, a California-based agribusiness and food processing company

text: Organizations[edit]

text:
Morningstar commune, formed in Sonoma County in the mid-1960s
Morning Star Boys' Ranch, Spokane, Washington
Morning Star Trust, U.K.-based, Christian sail training charity
Morning Star International, former name of Every Nation Churches, an organization of non-denominational churches

text: Arts and entertainment[edit]

text: Literature[edit]

text: Comics[edit]

text:
Morning Star (comics), a fictional Marvel Comics villain
Lucifer Morningstar, a DC character who primarily appears in The Sandman comic books by Neil Gaiman
Morningstar, a superhero from the Bogatyri comic books
Morningstar, a character in the Elementals comic book

text: Newsmedia[edit]

text:
Morning Star (British newspaper), a national daily newspaper in the U.K.
Morning Star (London newspaper), a defunct London newspaper
The Morning Star (British Columbia newspaper), a daily newspaper in Vernon, British Columbia
The Morning Star (New Hampshire newspaper), a defunct New Hampshire newspaper
Morning Star, established 1867 in Wilmington, North Carolina, renamed Star-News in 2003
Magic City Morning Star, an on-line newspaper from Katahdin, Maine

text: Novels[edit]

text:
Morning Star, a 1910 novel by Sir Henry Rider Haggard
Morning Star (Raven novel), a 1984 novel by Simon Raven
Morning Star (Brown novel), a 2016 novel by Pierce Brown
Morningstar, a 1992 novel by David Gemmell
The Morning Star, a 2001–2003 trilogy of novels by Nick Bantock
Morning Star, a character in the Noble Warriors Trilogy of novels by William Nicholson
Morningstar, a character from the novel Jack of Shadows by Roger Zelazny
Marjorie Morningstar, a 1955 novel by Herman Wouk

text: Other literature[edit]

text:
The Morning Star, a play by Emlyn Williams
The Morning Star, a 1979 book of poems and translations by Kenneth Rexroth
"Luceafărul", a narrative poem sometimes translated as "The Morning Star"

text: Film and television[edit]

text:
Marjorie Morningstar, a 1958 film based on the book by Herman Wouk
Morning Star (TV series), a short-lived American soap opera
Lucifer Morningstar, a character in the TV series Lucifer
Morning Star (L'Étoile du jour), a 2012 film by French director Sophie Blondy

text: Music[edit]

text: Classical music[edit]

text:
Morning Star (opera), by Ricky Ian Gordon
"Morning Star", choral composition by Arvo Pärt
"Morning Star", hymn by Simon Lole
"Morning Star", wind composition by David Maslanka
"Gwiazdo zaranna" (Morning star), chorus by Otton Mieczysław Żukowski
Morning Star (carol), a traditional Moravian carol

text: Artists[edit]

text: The Morningstars, a band fronted by Sierra Leonean musician S. E. Rogie

text: Albums[edit]

text:
Morning Star (Hubert Laws album), by the jazz flautist Hubert Laws
Morning Star (Entombed album), by the Swedish death metal band Entombed
Morning Star (Flunk album), by the Norwegian electronic music band Flunk
Morning Star (Spear of Destiny album)
Morningstar, an album by the American electronic music band Asmodeus X
Criminal Intents/Morning Star, a 2009 EP by the band Dope Stars Inc.

text: Songs[edit]

text:
"Morning Star" (Nat King Cole song), 1958
"Morningstar", a song by AFI from their 2000 album The Art of Drowning
"The Morningstar", a song by Draconian on their 2006 album The Burning Halo
"Morning Star", a musical work for wind ensemble composed by David Maslanka
"Morning Star" (N-Dubz song)
"Morning Star", a song by Roger Shah featuring the voice of Moya Brennan
"Morning Star", a song by Angra on their 2004 album Temple of Shadows
"Morning Star", a song by Cass McCombs on the album Big Wheel and Others
"Draconian Trilogy: Morning Star", a song by Therion on their 1998 album Vovin
"Morning Star, Durbanville", a song by Fokofpolisiekar on their 2006 album Swanesang
"Morning Star", song by Hank Marvin
"Morning Star", song by James Sugarboy Crawford
"Morning Star", song by Kool and The Gang
"Morning Star", song by Lucifer (band)
"Morning Star", song by Mel Torme
"Morning Star", song by Ronnie Ronalde
"Morning Star", song by aboriginal group Stiff Gins
"Morning Star", song by Willie Francis

text: Other arts[edit]

text: Morning Star, a painting by Alex Janvier

text: Other uses[edit]

text:
Morning Star (cannabis), a strain of Cannabis sativa
Morning star (candlestick pattern), a formation in a financial candlestick chart
Morning star (weapon), a spiked mace
Morning Star ceremony, ritual ceremony including human sacrifice performed by the Pawnee tribe into the 19th century
Morning Star flag, the national flag of West Papua
Frege's Puzzle, in philosophy of language, about Morning star and Evening star denoting the same object, yet having different meanings


document_title: Stanley Cup Finals

question_text: who has the most stanley cups in nhl

question_tokens: who has the most stanley cups in nhl

text: Stanley Cup Finals

text: History[edit]

text: The Stanley Cup was first awarded to the Montreal Hockey Club in 1893 when the team won the 1893 AHAC season. The team then had to defend its champion-title both through league championships and challenge games organised by the Stanley Cup trustees. Until 1912, these challenges could take place before or during a league season. After 1912, the trustees ordered that challenges only take place after all league games were completed.[2]

text: The last challenge, in 1914, was the inauguration of the first "World Series" of ice hockey,[3] a series between the Stanley Cup and league champion Toronto Hockey Club of the National Hockey Association (NHA) and the Victoria Aristocrats, champions of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA). The series was pre-arranged between the two leagues prior to the season after post-season exhibitions held in their previous seasons. The inaugural series was to be held in the city of the NHA champion, and alternate annually following the series.

text: After the series got under way, there was some concern that the series would not produce an "official" Stanley Cup champion. The Victoria club had not formally applied to the Stanley Cup trustees to challenge for the Cup.[4] A letter arrived from the Stanley Cup trustees on March 17, that the trustees would not let the Stanley Cup travel west, because they did not consider Victoria a proper challenger, as they had not verified themselves with the trustees.[5] However, on March 18, trustee William Foran stated that it was a misunderstanding. PCHA president Lester Patrick, PCHA President, had not filed a challenge, because he had expected Emmett Quinn of the NHA to make all of the arrangements in his role as hockey commissioner, whereas the trustees thought they were being purposely ignored. The Victoria challenge was accepted.[6] Any tension was disffused as Toronto successfully defended the Cup by sweeping a best-of-five series in three games.[7] This began the end of the influence of the Stanley Cup trustees on the challengers and series for the Cup. In March 1914, trustee William Foran wrote to NHA president Emmett Quinn that the trustees are "perfectly satisfied to allow the representatives of the three pro leagues (NHA, PCHA and Maritime) to make all arrangements each season as to the series of matches to be played for the Cup."[8]

text: Victoria vs. Toronto

text:
Date
Winning Team
Score
Losing Team
Rules
Notes

March 14, 1914
Toronto HC
5–2
Victoria Aristocrats
NHA

March 17, 1914
Toronto HC
6–5
Victoria Aristocrats
PCHA
15:00, OT

March 19, 1914
Toronto HC
2–1
Victoria Aristocrats
NHA

Toronto Hockey Club wins best-of-five series 3 games to 0

text: All games played at Arena Gardens in Toronto.

text: Part of their 1913 agreement to set up drafting and player rights ownership, the NHA and PCHA leagues agreed to have their respective champions face each other for the Cup.[9] At the same time, the NHA concluded a similar agreement with the Maritime Hockey League but the MHL champions abandoned their 1914 challenge and did not challenge again. From 1914 onwards, the Stanley Cup championship finals alternated between the East and the West each year, with alternating games played according to NHA and PCHA rules.[10] The Cup trustees agreed to this new arrangement, because after the Allan Cup became the highest prize for amateur hockey teams in Canada, the trustees had become dependent on the top two professional leagues to bolster the prominence of the trophy.[11] After the Portland Rosebuds, an American-based team, joined the PCHA in 1914, the trustees issued a statement that the Cup was no longer for the best team in Canada, but now for the best team in the world.[10] Two years later, the Rosebuds became the first American team to play in the Stanley Cup championship finals.[7] In 1917, the Seattle Metropolitans became the first American team to win the Cup.[12] After that season, the NHA dissolved, and the National Hockey League (NHL) took its place.[10]

text: In 1919, the Spanish influenza epidemic forced the Montreal Canadiens and the Seattle Metropolitans to cancel their series tied at 2–2–1, marking the first time the Stanley Cup was not awarded.[13]

text: The format for the Stanley Cup championship changed in 1922, with the creation of the Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL). Now three leagues competed for the Cup and this necessitated a semi-final series between two league champions, with the third having a bye directly to the finals.[14] In 1924, the PCHA and the WCHL merged to form the Western Hockey League (WHL) and the championship reverted to a single series.[15] After winning in the 1924–25 season, the Victoria Cougars became the last team outside the NHL to win the Stanley Cup.[16]

text: The WHL folded in 1926, and most of the players moved to the NHL. This left the NHL as the only league left competing for the Cup. Other leagues and clubs have issued challenges, but from that year forward, no non-NHL team has played for it, leading it to become the de facto championship trophy of the NHL.[15] In 1947, the NHL reached an agreement with trustees P. D. Ross and Cooper Smeaton to grant control of the cup to the NHL, allowing the league itself to reject challenges from other leagues that may have wished to play for the Cup.[17][18] A 2006 Ontario Superior Court case found that the trustees had gone against Lord Stanley's conditions in the 1947 agreement.[19] The NHL has agreed to allow other teams to play for the Cup should the league not be operating, as was the case in the 2004–05 NHL lockout.[18]

text: Broadcasting[edit]

text: The first television broadcast was in 1953. English-language coverage was aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), with the play-by-play called by Danny Gallivan and colour commentary by Keith Dancy, hosted by Wes McKnight. The Hockey Night in Canada team of Gallivan and Dancy would cover the next eight Finals. Gallivan would call his last championship series in 1978. Hockey Night in Canada on CBC remains the exclusive English-language broadcaster across Canada despite 1972 when a lengthy NABET strike forced coverage to be instead aired on CTV, from 1985 to 1988 when the series was split between CBC and either CTV or Global TV, and since 2015 when it became a Rogers Media-produced broadcast under a sub-license agreement.

text: French-language broadcasts in Canada also began in 1953, with play-by-play commentator René Lecavalier and colour commentator Jean-Maurice Bailly on CBC's Télévision de Radio-Canada (SRC) division. SRC would continue to be the exclusive French-language broadcaster until 2003 when Réseau des sports (RDS) took over. Since 2015, under a sub-license agreement with Rogers, TVA has been the exclusive home of French-language broadcasts in Canada.

text: The first broadcast in the United States was in 1962, covered by local Chicago station WGN, while network broadcasts started in 1966 on NBC. However, national coverage on American television, like the rest of the NHL season, remained in a state of flux for decades. From 1966 to 1975, NBC and CBS held the rights at various times, but they each only covered selected games of the series. It was then carried on syndication from 1976 to 1979 through the 1970s NHL Network. In 1980, the Hughes broadcast network simulcast CBC's feed before the series was moved to cable. During its time on cable from 1980 to 1993, rights to the series was held at various times by USA, SportsChannel America and ESPN, but there was no exclusive coverage of games and thus local broadcasters could also still televise them regionally as well. In 1995, Fox signed on to be the exclusive national broadcast network of selected games of the final round, splitting it with ESPN. This splitting of exclusive national coverage on cable/broadcast networks remains, first being passed to ABC and ESPN in 2000, and then NBC and Versus (now NBCSN) in 2006.

text: American local/national coverage policy for Stanley Cup Finals[edit]

text:
1995–present: National coverage (network and cable) exclusive.
1981–1994: Local coverage permitted for all games. National coverage (cable) not exclusive.
1976–1980: National coverage on syndicated network exclusive.
1968–1975: Local coverage permitted for non-network games. National network telecasts exclusive.

text: Series format[edit]

text: The championship series began with the interleague 'World Series' played in one city. The series alternated between a rink of the NHA and later the NHL and a rink of the PCHA and later the WCHL/WHL. It was not until the demise of the WHL, that the final series alternated games between the two finalists' home ice.

text: The series allowed ties until 1928. As the two and later three leagues differed, the series would alternate using each league's rules. The PCHA continued to use seven-man team play, and games would alternate with six and seven-man games.

text: After the NHL became the last remaining league to compete for the Cup, the trophy was then awarded to the winner of the NHL's championship playoff round. This first took place in 1927 between the Boston Bruins and the Ottawa Senators, which was planned to be a best-of-three series, although the series allowed ties. The series ended after four games, when the Senators defeated the Bruins in the fourth game.

text: The NHL has changed its playoff format several times since 1927, and thus the final round has not always pitted conference or division playoff champions against each other. In the playoff format used from 1929 to 1938, the two teams with identical division ranking would face each other (i.e. the first place teams played each other, the second place teams play each other, and likewise for the third place teams). The winner of the first place series would automatically advance to the final round. The winner of the second and third place series would then play each other, with the winner of that series earning the other berth to the championship round.

text: During the Original Six era, the top four teams made the playoffs, with the first and third place teams battling in one semifinal series, while the second and fourth place teams battled in the other. And from 1975 to 1981, all the playoff teams were seeded regardless of division or conference. Since 1982, the NHL's final round has pitted the league's two conference playoff champions.

text:
Years
Format
Notes

1914–1922
best-of-five

1923–1924
best-of-three

1925–1926
best-of-five

1927
best-of-three
Ties allowed, series ended in four games.

1928
best-of-five

1929–1930
best-of-three

1931–1938
best-of-five

1939–present
best-of-seven
2005 Finals canceled due to lockout

text: Champions[edit]

text:
Most recent Finals

Year
Winning team
Coach
Losing team
Coach
Result
Series-winning goal

2017
Pittsburgh Penguins (EC)
Mike Sullivan
Nashville Predators (WC)
Peter Laviolette
4–2
Patric Hornqvist (18:25, third)

2016
San Jose Sharks (EC)
Mike Sullivan
Pittsburgh penguins (WC)
mike Sullivan
4–2
Joe pavelski (7:46, second)

2015
Chicago Blackhawks (WC)
Joel Quenneville
Tampa Bay Lightning (EC)
Jon Cooper
4–2
Duncan Keith (17:13, second)

2014
Los Angeles Kings (WC)
Darryl Sutter
New York Rangers (EC)
Alain Vigneault
4–1
Alec Martinez (14:43, 2OT)

2013
Chicago Blackhawks (WC)
Joel Quenneville
Boston Bruins (EC)
Claude Julien
4–2
Dave Bolland (19:01, third)

2012
Los Angeles Kings (WC)
Darryl Sutter
New Jersey Devils (EC)
Peter DeBoer
4–2
Jeff Carter (12:45, first)

text:
Most Final appearances (Top Five)
(Bold indicates Cup wins)

Appearances
Team
Wins
Losses
Win %
Years of Appearance

34 [3]
Montreal Canadiens (NHA/NHL)
24
10
.727
1916, 1917, 1919 [3], 1924, 1925, 1930, 1931, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1986, 1989, 1993

24
Detroit Red Wings
11
13
.458
1934, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008, 2009

21
Toronto Maple Leafs [1]
13
8
.619
1918, 1922, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1967

19
Boston Bruins
6
13
.315
1927, 1929, 1930, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1946, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1988, 1990, 2011, 2013

13
Chicago Blackhawks [2]
6
7
.462
1931, 1934, 1938, 1944, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1971, 1973, 1992, 2010, 2013, 2015

text:
^ 1. The NHL includes the Toronto Hockey Club (Toronto Arenas) 1918 win and the 1922 Toronto St. Patricks win in the Toronto Maple Leafs total.
^ 2. The Chicago Blackhawks were known as the Chicago Black Hawks prior to the 1986–87 season.
^ 3. The Montreal Canadiens totals include the 1919 Final that ended with a no-decision because of the Spanish flu epidemic.

text: Records[edit]

text: Team[edit]

text:
Most wins: Montreal Canadiens (24)
Most losses: Detroit Red Wings (13), Boston Bruins (13)
Least losses: Colorado Avalanche (0)
Most consecutive wins: Montreal Canadiens (5 in 1956–1960)
Most consecutive losses: Toronto Maple Leafs (3 in 1938–1940), St. Louis Blues (3 in 1968–1970)
Most consecutive appearances: Montreal Canadiens (10 in 1951–1960)[20]
Most appearances without a loss: Montreal Canadiens (9 from 1968 to 1986)
Most appearances without a win: Toronto Maple Leafs (6 from 1933 to 1940), Detroit Red Wings (6 from 1956 to 1995), Philadelphia Flyers (6 from 1976 to 2010)
Most seasons between wins: New York Rangers (53 between 1940 and 1994)
Most seasons between appearances: Toronto Maple Leafs (48 between 1967 and the present)

text: Stanley Cup Final consecutive appearances[edit]

text:
Team
Stanley Cup Final appearance streak
Consecutive Stanley Cup Final appearances
Stanley Cup championships during streak

Montreal Canadiens
10 seasons
1950–51 through to 1959–60
6 : 1952–53, 1955–56, 1956–57, 1957–58, 1958–59, 1959–60

Montreal Canadiens
05 seasons
1964–65 through to 1968–69
4 : 1964–65, 1965–66, 1967–68, 1968–69

New York Islanders
05 seasons
1979–80 through to 1983–84
4 : 1979–80, 1980–81, 1981–82, 1982–83

Montreal Canadiens
04 seasons
1975–76 through to 1978–79
4 : 1975–76, 1976–77, 1977–78, 1978–79

Detroit Red Wings
03 seasons
1940–41 through to 1942–43
1 : 1942–43

Toronto Maple Leafs
03 seasons
1946–47 through to 1948–49
3 : 1946–47, 1947–48, 1948–49

Detroit Red Wings
03 seasons
1947–48 through to 1949–50
1 : 1949–50

Detroit Red Wings
03 seasons
1953–54 through to 1955–56
2 : 1953–54, 1954–55

Toronto Maple Leafs
03 seasons
1961–62 through to 1963–64
3 : 1961–62, 1962–63, 1963–64

St. Louis Blues
03 seasons
1967–68 through to 1969–70
none

Philadelphia Flyers
03 seasons
1973–74 through to 1975–76
2 : 1973–74, 1974–75

Edmonton Oilers
03 seasons
1982–83 through to 1984–85
2 : 1983–84, 1984–85

text: Individual[edit]

text:
Most years in Final (12) - Maurice Richard, Red Kelly, Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard[21]
Most games played in Final (65) - Red Kelly, Henri Richard[21]
Most consecutive games in Final (53) - Bernie Geoffrion[21]
Most career points in Final (62) - Jean Beliveau[21]
Most career goals in Final (34) - Maurice Richard[21]
Most career assists in Final (35) - Wayne Gretzky[21]
Most career game-winning goals in Final (9) - Jean Beliveau[21]
Most career shutouts in Final (8) - Clint Benedict[21]

text:
Most points, one series (13) - Wayne Gretzky (1988)[22]
Most goals, one series (14) - Bernie Morris (1917) [nb 2]
Most assists, one series (10) - Wayne Gretzky (1988)[22]
Most shutouts, one series (3) - Clint Benedict (1926), Frank McCool (1945), Martin Brodeur (2003)[22]