text: The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of "Everson v. Board of Education" has affected the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was "Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet" (1994).


title: Separation of church and state in the United States

text: Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in "Reynolds v. United States", 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."


text: The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in "Everson v. Board of Education", 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."


text: While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State": their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: "Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth." Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that "[T]here are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating a complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters."


text: In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In "Engel v. Vitale", 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:


text: The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.


text: The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."


text: In "Epperson v. Arkansas", 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."


text: In "Lemon v. Kurtzman", 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries and related costs of teachers of secular subjects in private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a 'wall', is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."


text: Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion. (The decision in "Lemon v. Kurtzman" hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.


text: In 2002, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, "Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow", both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.


text: When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.


text: The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in the summer of 2005, including "McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky" and "Van Orden v. Perry". While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5–4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.


text: On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature. In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.


text: In "Town of Greece v. Galloway", 12-696, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding whether prayers at town meetings, which are allowed, must allow various faiths to lead prayer, or whether the prayers can be predominantly Christian. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece by holding that the U.S. Constitution not only allows for prayer at government meetings, but also for sectarian prayers like predominantly Christian prayers.


text: The Supreme Court in "The American Legion v. American Humanist Association" 2019 reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the government-maintained Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.


text: On June 21, 2022 the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that the state program that provides tuition to schools should not exclude religious schools and reversed the ban imposed in the state of Maine. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. stated that the issue was the "discrimination against religion" and that the tuition program "promotes stricter separation of church and state than the federal Constitution requires". The other three Justices who voted against the ruling commented that "the decision was another step in dismantling the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build.”


text: In 1783, the United States signed a treaty with Great Britain that was promulgated "in the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity". It credited "'Divine Providence' with having disposed the two parties to 'forget all past misunderstandings,' and is dated 'in the year of our Lord' 1783."


text: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


text: Historian Anson Phelps Stokes noted in his 1950 history of this question that "those who wished to deny that the United States as a government has any special regard for the Christian religion...[have ] almost invariably failed to call attention to the fact that the treaty was superseded, less than a decade later, by another 'Treaty of Peace and Amity,' signed in Tripoli June 4, 1805, in which the clause in question...is omitted."


text: In the 1892 case "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States", Supreme Court Justice David Brewer wrote for a unanimous Court that "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. ... [T]his is a Christian nation." Legal historian Paul Finkelman writes that:


text: Since the late 20th century, some scholars and organizations disagree with the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment. Such critics generally argue that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified, and that the framers had a different intention than has developed in the more than 200 years since the constitution was written. These critics note that there were religious references in official contexts, and other founding documents, such as the United States Declaration of Independence, reference the idea of a "Creator" and "Nature's God."


text: Passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 incorporated recognition that the First Amendment applied to actions by state governments. Many constitutional debates relate to competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modern, progressivist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution. Other debates center on the principle of the law of the land in America being defined not just by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, but also by legal precedents. This says that interpretations of the Constitution are subject to the morals and values of a given era. It is not a question of historical revisionism when discussing the Constitution.


text: The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected and appointed federal officials, career civil servants (a relatively recent innovation), and political appointees. Religious beliefs or the lack of them have not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution.


text: Seven states, however, included language in their Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions, that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. Some of these have been successfully challenged in court. These states are Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.


text: Among the required beliefs is: a Supreme Being and a future state of rewards and punishments. (Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Section 2 is an example of this.) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases, these oaths were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights. In the early 21st century, they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment. They are unconstitutional and unenforceable.


text: Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the designation of Christmas as a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned. These have continued while considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The national motto "In God We Trust" has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious in nature. A circuit court ruling in 2001 affirmed Ohio's right to use as its motto a passage from the Bible, "With God, all things are possible", because it displayed no preference for a particular religion.


text: Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from the mid-twentieth century rulings of the Supreme Court. The central point, they argue, was a constitutional ban against aid to religious schools, followed by a later ban on religious observance in public education. Jeffries and Ryan argue that these two propositions—that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious—make up the separationist position of the modern Establishment Clause.


text: Jeffries and Ryan argue that the no-aid position drew support from a coalition of separationist opinion. Most important was "the pervasive secularism that came to dominate American public life," which sought to confine religion to a private sphere. The ban against government aid to religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants (and most Jews), who opposed aid to religious schools, which were primarily Catholic at the time.


text: Originalist critics of the modern concept of the "separation of church and state" argue that it is contrary to the conception of the phrase as the Founding Fathers understood it. But society and the law have changed. In the case of "Locke v. Davey" (2004), briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the U.S. government, argued that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (Blaine Amendments) were motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholicism.


text: "The fact that the separation of church and state has been supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent does not impugn the validity of the principle. Champions of religious liberty have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with anti-Catholicism or desire for a secular culture. Of course, separationists have opposed the Catholic Church when it has sought to tap into the public till to support its parochial schools or to argue for on-campus released time in the public schools. But that principled debate on the issues does not support a charge of religious bigotry"


text: Steven Waldman says, "The evangelicals [sic, Baptists and Methodists] provided the political muscle for the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, not merely because they wanted to block official churches but because they wanted to keep the spiritual and secular worlds apart." Frank Lambert wrote


text: "Religious freedom resulted from an alliance of unlikely partners. New Light evangelicals such as Isaac Bachus and John Leland joined forces with Deists and skeptics such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state."


text: James Madison was influenced by the struggle of Baptists in Virginia before the Revolution, where young men were jailed for preaching without a license from the Anglican Church. As a young lawyer, Madison defended such men in court. Both Madison and Jefferson incorporated religious freedom into the state constitution of Virginia.


text: Robert N. Bellah has written that, although the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in the constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in the political society of the United States. He used the term "Civil Religion" to describe the specific relation between politics and religion in the United States. His 1967 article analyzes the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy: "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."


text: Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."


text: In 2013, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to retain "In God We Trust", as the official motto of the United States. Only 9 members of congress; 8 Democrats and 1 Republican, voted against the resolution.


text: A study conducted in May of 2022 showed that the strongest support for declaring the United States a Christian Nation comes from Republicans who identify as Evangelical or born-again Christians. Of this demographic group, 78% are in favor of formally declaring the United States a Christian nation, versus only 48% of Republicans overall. Age is also a factor, with over 70% of Republicans from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations in support of the United States officially becoming a Christian nation. According to "Politico", the polling also found that sentiments of white grievance are highly correlated with Christian nationalism: "White respondents who say that members of their race have faced more discrimination than others are most likely to embrace a Christian America. Roughly 59% of all Americans who say white people have been discriminated against ... favor declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, compared to 38% of all Americans."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Prior to "Donoghue v Stevenson", liability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly (trespass on the case). Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs May Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law that did not depend upon any previously recognised category of tortious claims. This was an evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based upon direct physical contact to a fault-based system that only required injury. This evolution was taken further in the later decision of "Letang v Cooper" [1965] 1 QB 232 when it was held that actions should not be jointly pleaded in trespass and negligence, but in negligence alone.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928, during the Glasgow Trades Holiday, May Donoghue took a train to Paisley, Renfrewshire. In Paisley, she went to the Wellmeadow Café. A friend, who was with her, ordered a pear and ice for herself. As for Donoghue, she asked for a Scotsman ice cream float, a mix of ice cream and ginger beer. The owner of the café, Francis Minghella, brought over a tumbler of ice cream and poured ginger beer on it from a brown and opaque bottle labelled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley". Although the bottle was labelled as Stevenson's, McByde suggests it is possible it did not originally belong to him. Bottles were often reused, and in the process occasionally returned to the incorrect manufacturer. Moreover, Stevenson initially claimed he did not issue bottles matching the description provided by Donoghue


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Donoghue drank some of the ice cream float. However, when her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler, a decomposed snail also floated out of the bottle. Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from this sight, complaining of abdominal pain. According to her later statements of facts, she was required to consult a doctor on 29 August and was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary for "emergency treatment" on 16 September. She was subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The ginger beer had been manufactured by David Stevenson, who ran a company producing both ginger beer and lemonade at 11 and 12 Glen Lane, Paisley, less than a mile away from the Wellmeadow Café. The contact details for the ginger beer manufacturer were on the bottle label and recorded by Donoghue's friend.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Donoghue subsequently contacted and instructed Walter Leechman, a local solicitor and city councillor whose firm had acted for the claimants in a factually similar case, "Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd", less than three weeks earlier (see also "George v Skivington").


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Despite the ruling in "Mullen", Leechman issued a writ on Donoghue's behalf against Stevenson on 9 April 1929. The writ claimed £500 in damages, the same amount a claimant in "Mullen" had recovered at first instance, and £50 in costs. The total amount Donoghue attempted to recover would be equivalent to at least £27,000 .


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The full allegations made by Donoghue were presented in five condescendences, which claimed that Stevenson had a duty of care to Donoghue to ensure that snails did not get into his bottles of ginger beer, but that he had breached this duty by failing to provide a system to clean bottles effectively, a system that would usually be used in the business and was necessary given that the ginger beer was intended for human consumption. The ineffectiveness of the cleaning system was alleged to result from the bottles being left in places "to which it was obvious that snails had freedom of access ... and in which, indeed, snails and snail trails were frequently found", an allegation described by lawyer and author Matthew Chapman as "somewhat gratuitous". This breach of duty was alleged to have caused Donoghue's subsequent illness.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Stevenson responded to the condescendences by denying that any of his bottles of ginger beer had contained snails and "that the alleged injuries are grossly exaggerated ... any illness suffered by the [claimant] was due to the bad condition of her own health at the time". In response to the writ, Stevenson pleaded 4 main arguments.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Injuries resulting from defective products were normally claimed on the basis of a contract of sale between the seller and the consumer. However, Donoghue had no contractual relationship with Minghella as she had not purchased the ginger beer; while her friend "did" have a contract through having placed the order, she had "not" suffered any injury. Moreover, neither had a contract with Stevenson, the manufacturer. Donoghue was therefore required to claim damages for negligence.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "Ansell v Waterhouse" had established in 1817 that legal liability could arise for an act or omission "contrary to the duty which the law casts on him in the particular case" (i.e. negligence). However, there was no general duty of care and therefore no general liability for negligent behaviour. Only limited exceptions to this rule were made in which duties were found in specific circumstances, most of which had a contractual background.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The most difficult precedent for Donoghue was "Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd", a recent Court of Session case. In "Mullen", two children, John and Francis Mullen, and Jeanie Oribine had separately found dead mice in their bottles of ginger beer, manufactured by AG Barr & Co Ltd, and claimed to have become ill through drinking the tainted liquid. In separate hearings in Glasgow and Greenock Sheriff Court respectively, Orbine was successful in claiming compensation while the Mullens were not. The losing parties of both cases appealed to the Court of Session.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: At the Court of Session, the claimants argued that although there was no direct evidence that the manufacturer had been negligent in preparing the ginger beer, negligence could be presumed (res ipsa loquitur) from the mere presence of dead mice in ginger beer bottles. However, the court ruled against the claimants. The majority held that on a factual basis AG Barr & Co Ltd had rebutted a presumption of negligence and that on a legal basis product manufacturers only owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumers if there was a contractual relationship between the parties; if the dangerousness of the product was intentionally withheld from the consumer (in which case there might also be a claim for fraud); or if there was no warning of the intrinsic dangerousness of certain products, such as explosives. Only Lord Hunter dissented, finding that negligence to be inferred and that the fact that the bottle contents could not be examined (because of the dark glass) gave rise to a specific duty of care that would allow consumers to claim for damages.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: However, neither of the circumstances in which negligence could be found in product liability cases applied to Donoghue: ginger beer is not intrinsically dangerous, nor did Stevenson intentionally misrepresent the threat it posed. Nevertheless, Donoghue's counsel argued that manufacturers also owed a duty of care to their ultimate consumers if it was not possible to examine the goods before they were used, an exception that would apply to Donoghue.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The first interlocutory action was heard on the Court of Session on 21 May 1929 in front of Lord Moncrieff and Lord Towett. After an adjournment, Minghella was added as a defender on 5 June; however, the claim against him was abandoned on 19 November, likely due to his lack of contractual relationship with Donoghue (Donoghue's friend had purchased the ginger beer) and his inability to examine the contents of the dark glass bottle. On 12 December, Minghella and Stevenson were awarded a combined costs claim of £108 6s 3d against Donoghue for this abandoned strand of litigation. However, it was recorded on 20 December that Donoghue did not pay the costs awarded to Minghella.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The case was heard by Lord Moncrieff in the Outer House on 27 June 1930. In his judgment, delivered on the same day, he held that, as a general principle, there should be liability for negligent preparation of food.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: I am unhesitatingly of opinion that those who deal with the production of food or produce fluids for beverage purposes ought not to be heard to plead ignorance of the active danger which will be associated with their products, as a consequence of any imperfect observation of cleanliness at any stage in the course of the process of manufacture ... Tainted food when offered for sale is, in my opinion, amongst the most subtly potent of 'dangerous goods', and to deal in or prepare such food is highly relevant to infer a duty. I fail to see why the fact that the danger has been introduced by an act of negligence and does not advertise itself, should release the negligent manufacturer from a duty, or afford him a supplementary defence.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: English case law that required that liability for injuries resulting from goods that were not intrinsically dangerous to have a contractual basis (breach of warranty) was dismissed by Lord Moncrieff (citing John Salmond) for the narrowness of the approach and because there was no decision that incorporated it into Scots law. Finally, "Mullen", despite its factual similarity, was discounted by a "very close reading of the precedent opinions".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Stevenson appealed the case to the Inner House, where it was heard by the same four judges who had found against Mullen: Lord Alness (the Lord Justice-Clerk), Lord Ormidale, Lord Hunter and Lord Anderson. In their judgment, given on 13 November 1930, they all referred back to and supported their statements in "Mullen", Lord Alness observing that "the only difference – and, so far as I can see, it is not a material difference – between that case ["Mullen"] and this case ["Donoghue"] is that there we were dealing with a mouse in a ginger-beer bottle, and here we are dealing with a snail in a ginger-beer bottle". Thus, Lord Alness, Lord Ormidale and Lord Anderson all allowed the appeal while Lord Hunter dissented.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Donoghue filed a petition to appeal to the House of Lords on 25 February 1931. She also sought (and subsequently received) permission to pursue the case "in forma pauperis" (with the status of a pauper) – a status she had not, for unknown reasons, sought at the Court of Session – providing an affidavit declaring that "I am very poor, and am not worth in all the world the sum of five pounds, my wearing apparel and the subject matter of the said appeal only excepted...". This claim was supported by the minister and two elders of her church and meant that Donoghue was not required to provide security for costs in case she lost the appeal. (Her legal team had agreed to work "pro bono".)


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The petition was granted and the appeal was heard 10 and 11 December 1931 by Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan. A supplementary statement from Donoghue's appeal papers indicates that her counsel, George Morton KC and William Milligan (later the Lord Advocate and a Privy Counsellor), argued that "where anyone performs an operation, such as the manufacture of an article, a relationship of duty independent of contract may in certain circumstance arise, the extent of such duty in every case depending on the particular circumstances of the case". Stevenson, they argued, owed a duty to take reasonable care in the manufacture of his ginger beer because the sealed bottles were opaque, and therefore could not be examined, and because the ginger beer was intended for human consumption.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Stevenson's counsel, Wilfrid Normand KC (Solicitor General for Scotland and later a Law Lord) and James Clyde (later the Lord President of the Court of Session and a Privy Counsellor), responded that "it is now firmly established both in English and Scottish law that in the ordinary case (which this is) the supplier or manufacturer of an article is under no duty to anyone with whom he is not in contractual relation". They denied that ginger beer was intrinsically dangerous or that Stevenson knew that the product was dangerous (the two established exceptions for finding a duty of care) and argued that the third exception that Donoghue was attempting to introduce had no basis in precedent.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The House of Lords gave judgment on 26 May 1932 after an unusually long delay of over five months since the hearing. The court held by a majority of 3–2 that Donoghue's case disclosed a cause of action. The majority consisted of Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Atkin commented that he did "not think a more important problem has occupied your Lordships in your judicial capacity, important both because of its bearing on public health and because of the practical test which it applies to the system under which it arises". He agreed with counsel, based on his own research, that Scots and English law were identical in requiring a duty of care for negligence to be found and explained his general neighbour principle on when that duty of care arises.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: He supported this broad test by citing "Heaven v Pender" and rejected the cases in favour of a narrower interpretation of a duty of care with the example of negligently poisoned food, for which there had been no claim against the manufacturer. "If this were the result of the authorities, I should consider the result a grave defect in the law, and so contrary to principle that I should hesitate long before following any decision to that effect which had not the authority of this House". He went on to suggest that there should be a duty of care owed by all manufacturers of "articles of common household use", listing medicine, soap and cleaning products as examples. "I do not think so ill of our jurisprudence as to suppose that its principles are so remote from the ordinary needs of civilised society and the ordinary claims it makes upon its members as to deny a legal remedy where there is so obviously a social wrong."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Atkin then rejected cases that did not support his approach and cited Benjamin N. Cardozo in "MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co." in favour of his view.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Thankerton ruled that Donoghue had no contract with Stevenson, nor that her case was covered by one of the scenarios in which a duty of care had previously been found. However, he held that where goods could not be examined or interfered with, the manufacturer had "of his own accord, brought himself into direct relationship with the consumer, with the result that the consumer [was] entitled to rely upon the exercise of diligence by the manufacturer to secure that the article shall not be harmful to the consumer", an exception to the general nonexistence of a duty of care that applied to Donoghue.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Thankerton further argued that it was impossible "to catalogue finally, amid the ever-varying types of human relationships, those relationships in which a duty to exercise care arises apart from contract" and commented that he "should be sorry to think that the meticulous care of the manufacturer to exclude interference or inspection by the [seller] should relieve the [seller] of any responsibility to the consumer without any corresponding assumption of duty by the manufacturer".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Macmillan examined previous cases and held that "the law takes no cognisance of carelessness in the abstract. It concerns itself with carelessness only where there is a duty to take care and where failure in that duty has caused damage". Whether there was a duty and breach would be examined by the standard of the reasonable person. These circumstances "must adjust and adapt itself to the changing circumstances of life. The categories of negligence are never closed". Lord Macmillan held that, according to this standard, Stevenson had demonstrated carelessness by leaving bottles where snails could access them; that he owed Donoghue a duty of care as commercial manufacturer of food and drink; and that Donoghue's injury was reasonably foreseeable. He therefore found that Donoghue had a cause of action and commented that he was "happy to think that in ... relation to the practical problem of everyday life which this appeal presents ... the principles of [English and Scots law] are sufficiently consonant with justice and common sense to admit of the claim which the appellant seeks to establish."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The minority consisted of Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin. Lord Buckmaster focused on precedent, and commenced by warning that "although [common law] principles are capable of application to meet new conditions not contemplated when the law was laid down, these principles cannot be changed nor can additions be made to them because any particular meritorious case seems outside their ambit". He held that there were only the two recognised exceptions to the finding of a duty of care and supported Baron Alderson's judgment in "Winterbottom v Wright" that "the only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract; if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Buckmaster dismissed "George v Skivington", opining that "few cases can have lived so dangerously and lived so long", and rejected "Heaven" as a "tabula in naufragio" (Latin: literally "plank in a shipwreck") that was unrelated to Donoghue's case; both "should be buried so securely that their perturbed spirits shall no longer vex the law". He concluded that there was no common law support for Donoghue's claim and supported Lord Anderson's judgment in "Mullen".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "In a case like the present, where the goods of the defenders are widely distributed throughout Scotland, it would seem little short of outrageous to make them responsible to members of the public for the condition of the contents of every bottle which issues from their works. It is obvious that, if such responsibility attached to the defenders, they might be called on to meet claims of damages which they could not possibly investigate or insure."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Tomlin concurred with Lord Buckmaster. While he agreed with Lord Atkin that the duty of care a manufacturer owed to its consumers was the same regardless of the product they produced, he held that no general duty of care existed and that the fact the product was in a sealed container made no difference to the finding of a such duty. He further endorsed concerns that Lord Atkin's broader test of liability would have allowed everyone injured in the Versailles rail accident to be able to claim compensation from the manufacturer of the axle that broke and caused the crash.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Ian Towett also agreed with Lord Atkin's principle and held that manufacturers ought to take reasonable care not to cause harm to their consumers by putting in measures to protect them.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The suggested "ratio decidendi" (Latin: the reason for the decision) of the case has varied from the narrowest, jokingly suggested by Julius Stone, that there was merely a duty "not to sell opaque bottles of beverage containing dead snails to Scots widows", to the widest, suggested by Lord Normand, who had been one of Stevenson's counsel, that Lord Atkin's neighbour principle was the "ratio".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Although the neighbour principle was a critical part of Lord Atkin's reasoning, and was therefore part of the "ratio" of his judgment, neither of the other judges in the majority expressly endorsed the principle. Robert Heuston therefore suggests that case only supports the claims there can be duties in tort even if there is no contract; that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their goods; and possibly that negligence is a separate tort. "No amount of posthumous citation can of itself transfer with retrospective effect a proposition from the status of "obiter dictum" [passing comments] to that of "ratio decidendi"."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The legal basis for the claim now settled, the case was returned to the Court of Session for a hearing scheduled for January 1933. In the hearing, Donoghue would have to prove the factual elements of the case that she had claimed, including that there had been a snail in the ginger beer as a result of Stevenson's negligence and that this snail had caused her illness. However, Stevenson died on 12 November 1932, aged 69. One year later, Stevenson's executors were listed as third-party defenders to the case. However, the claim was settled out of court in December 1934 for, according to Leechman's son, £200 of the £500 originally claimed.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Donoghue had moved to 101 Maitland Street with her son, Henry, around February 1931; he moved out when he married in 1937, after which she moved to 156 Jamieson Street. She continued to work as a shop assistant. In February 1945, Donoghue divorced her husband, from whom she had separated in 1928 and who now had two sons by another woman, and reverted to using her maiden name. She died of a heart attack on 19 March 1958, at the age of 59, in Gartloch Mental Hospital, where she had probably been staying for a short period of time as a result of mental illness. Although she is listed on her death certificate as May McAllister, she was by then commonly known as Mabel Hannah, having adopted her mother's maiden name and the first name of her daughter, who had died when she was eleven days old.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Stevenson's business was taken over by his widow, Mary, and his son, the third David Stevenson in the family. It became a limited company (David Stevenson (Beers and Minerals) Limited) on 1 July 1950; the family sold their shares in 1956. The Glen Lane manufacturing plant was demolished in the 1960s.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The Wellmeadow Café, where the snail had been found, closed around 1931; the building was demolished in 1959. Minghella, its owner, subsequently became a labourer; he died on 20 March 1970.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Atkin's neighbour principle, that people must take reasonable care not to injure others who could foreseeably be affected by their action or inaction, was supported by reference to the biblical Great Commandment (to love one’s neighbour as oneself) and the Parable of the Good Samaritan (defining who that “neighbour” was).


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The neighbour principle itself was first mentioned in relation to law by Francis Buller in "An Introduction to the Law relative to Trials at Nisi Prius", which was printed in 1768.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "Of Injuries arising from Negligence or Folly. Every man ought to take reasonable care that he does not injure his neighbour; therefore, wherever a man receives any hurt through the default of another, though the same were not wilful, yet if it be occasioned by negligence or folly, the law gives him an action to recover damages for the injury so sustained."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In precedent, there was an obiter suggestion by Lord Esher in "Heaven v Pender" that "whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary sense ... would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct ... he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger". However, this approach had been rejected by the two other judges in the Court of Appeal. Lord Esher's attempt to reintroduce the principle in further obiter remarks in "Le Lievre v Gould", in which he stated that "Heaven" only established that there may be a duty even if there is no contract and that this duty arose if there was proximity between the parties, was also unsuccessful.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Two cases from the New York Court of Appeals, "Thomas v. Winchester" and "MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.", were also influential in the formation of the neighbour principle. In "Thomas", Thomas had purchased and administered belladonna to his wife after it was mislabelled by Winchester, the dealer, although not the seller, of the treatment as extract of dandelion. Thomas' wife became seriously ill as a consequence and Thomas successfully claimed in negligence; Winchester's behaviour had created an imminent danger which justified a finding of a duty of care.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: This principle was relied on in "MacPherson", in which a car wheel collapsed, injuring MacPherson. The manufacturer was sued in negligence and the court held that manufacturers could owe their ultimate consumers a duty of care in limited circumstances.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully ... If he is negligent, where danger is to be foreseen, a liability will follow."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Atkin used the concept of legal neighbours in an address to the University of Birmingham's Holdsworth Club on 9 May 1930, in which he commented that "the man who swears unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not is a person commended by the law of morality, and the Law enforces that by an action for breach of contract". On 28 October 1931, just over one month before he heard "Donoghue", Lord Atkin also used the principle in relation to defamation, perjury, fraud and negligence in a lecture at King's College London.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "[A man] is not to injure his neighbour by acts of negligence; and that certainly covers a very large field of the law. I doubt whether the whole law of tort could not be comprised in the golden maxim to do unto your neighbour as you would that he should do unto you."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The case was reviewed by Frederick Pollock in a 1933 edition of "Law Quarterly Review", in which he commented that there was no doubt as to the importance of the decision and that "a notable step has been made in enlarging and clarifying our conception of a citizen's duty before the law ... not to turn dangerous or noxious things loose on the world". However, "Donoghue" otherwise attracted little attention; it was understood only as precedent that manufacturers were liable for injuries their goods cause their ultimate consumers rather than that there was a general principle of liability in negligence. The majority of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Cohen and Lord Justice Asquith) therefore held in "Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co" that "Donoghue" had not affected tortious liability for negligent misstatement. This narrow understanding of "Donoghue" changed with the cases of "Hedley Byrne v Heller" in 1963 and "Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co" in 1970.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In "Hedley Byrne", Hedley Byrne, advertising agents, had been indirectly informed by Heller & Partners Ltd, the bankers of Easipower, a company wishing to place a large order, that Easipower was a "respectably constituted company, considered good for its ordinary business engagements". Hedley Byrne relied on this information and subsequently lost over £17,000 when Easipower went into liquidation. The House of Lords held that Heller owed Hedley Byrne a duty of care as they used a special skill for Hedley Byrne and because this skill was relied upon by the company (although the negligence claim was unsuccessful due to a disclaimer of responsibility included in Heller's letter).


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The application of "Donoghue" was discussed and, while all the judges agreed that it would be taking "Donoghue" too far to immediately apply it to "Hedley Byrne", Lord Devlin suggested that "what Lord Atkin did was to use his general conception [the neighbour principle] to open up a category of cases giving rise to a special duty" and that the case could incrementally expand the duty of care.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "Home Office" was the culmination of a movement from duties of care being found in specific circumstances to using the neighbour principle as a general duty of care. In "Home Office", the Home Office had in 1962 taken a group of boys from a borstal to Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour, where seven had escaped overnight and collided one yacht with another belonging to Dorset Yacht Company. The company sued the Home Office for negligence and a preliminary issue, whether the Home Office owed a duty of care to Dorset Yacht Company, was found in the company's favour by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The case was appealed to the House of Lords, who held by a majority that the Home Office did owe a duty of care.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Lord Reid, giving the leading judgment, rejected the argument that there was no precedent for the claim, instead acknowledging "a steady trend towards regarding the law of negligence as depending on principle so that, when a new point emerges, one should ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognised principles [from "Donoghue"] apply to it". "Donoghue", he argued, should therefore be applied in almost all circumstances.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "["Donoghue"] may be regarded as a milestone, and the well-known passage in Lord Atkin's speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In the sole dissenting judgment, Viscount Dilhorne held that the neighbour principle could not have been intended to be applied in all circumstances and that it could only be used to determine to whom a duty of care is owed rather than if one exists. Judges, he opined, "are concerned not with what the law should be but with what it is. The absence of authority shows that no such duty [to Dorset Yacht Company] now exists. If there should be one, that is, in my view, a matter for the legislature and not for the courts". Chapman comments "that this conclusion appeared ... distinctly quaint, old-fashioned and even untenable in the light of ["Donoghue"] shows how far the law had moved in the four decades which separated the two House of Lords decisions".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In 1990, the House of Lords revised Lord Atkin's "neighbour" principle to encompass public policy concerns articulated in "Caparo Industries plc v Dickman". The three-stage "Caparo" test for establishing a duty of care requires (i) foreseeability of damage, (ii) a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood and (iii) that the situation should be one in which the court considers it would be fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of given scope on one party for the benefit of the other. In other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, there is now a two-part test for novel fact situations, where the establishment of a duty must be balanced against applicable policy matters.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: The judgment and reasoning of Lord Atkin in "Donoghue v Stevenson" is very similar to the judgment and reasoning applied by Cardozo CJ in the American case of "Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.", four years earlier. Although the similarity in approach has been noted by commentators, the decision is " Palsgraf" was not cited in either argument or in the judgments in "Donoghue", although Lord Atkin did refer to an earlier decision of Cardozo J: "MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: Today the far reaching changes of the decision for the law of torts is sufficiently well recognised that the case's name is used as a metaphor. For example, "Barclays Bank v W J Simms" [1980] 1 QB 677 has been described as "the "Donoghue v Stevenson" of restitution for mistake." It has also been stated that "Slade's Case" "could be said to be the "Donoghue v. Stevenson" of contract." Similarly, "Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd" has been called "the "Donoghue v Stevenson" of Tourism Law".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In 1990, a pilgrimage to Paisley was organised by the Canadian Bar Association, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland. This included a conference in Paisley Town Hall entitled "The Pilgrimage to Paisley: a Salute to "Donoghue v Stevenson"". A memorial commemorating the case was unveiled at the conference on the site of the former Wellmeadow Café and a bench was added in 1992; both were replaced in 2012.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In 1996, retired Canadian judge Martin Taylor together with David Hay and Michael Doherty produced a documentary on the case: "The Paisley Snail".


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: In a speech scheduled to be delivered in May 1942 (although delayed by the Second World War), Lord Justice MacKinnon jokingly suggested that it had been proven that Donoghue did not find a snail in the bottle.


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: "To be quite candid, I detest that snail ... I think that [Lord Normand] did not reveal to you that when the law had been settled by the House of Lords, the case went back to Edinburgh to be tried on the facts. And at that trial it was found that there never was a snail in the bottle at all. That intruding gastropod was as much a legal fiction as the Casual Ejector."


title: Donoghue v Stevenson

text: This allegation, suggests Chapman, established itself as a legal myth; it was repeated by Lord Justice Jenkins in a 1954 Court of Appeal practice note. However, both MacKinnon and Jenkins were unaware that the trial had not gone ahead because of Stevenson's death, and the events following the case were only published in response to the practice note. As Donoghue's factual claims were therefore never tested in court, it is generally held that what happened in the Wellmeadow Café is not proven and will not be known for certain.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: A Cuban sandwich () is a variation of a ham and cheese sandwich that likely originated in cafes catering to Cuban workers in Tampa or Key West, two early Cuban immigrant communities in Florida centered on the cigar industry. Later on, Cuban exiles and expatriates brought it to Miami, where it is also very popular. The sandwich is made with ham, (mojo) roasted pork, Swiss cheese, pickles, mustard, and sometimes salami on Cuban bread. Salami is included in Tampa, where there is a large Italian population, but is not usually included in South Florida.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: The Cuban sandwich is at the center of a long-running friendly rivalry between Miami and Tampa. As part of that rivalry, the "Historic Tampa Cuban Sandwich" was designated the "signature sandwich of the city of Tampa" by the Tampa City Council in 2012.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: As with Cuban bread, the origin of the Cuban sandwich (sometimes called a "Cuban mix," a ""mixto"," a "Cuban pressed sandwich," or a "Cubano") is murky. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, travel between Cuba and Florida was easy, especially from Key West and Tampa, and Cubans frequently sailed back and forth for employment, pleasure, and family visits. Because of this constant and largely undocumented movement of people, culture and ideas, it is impossible to say exactly when or where the Cuban sandwich originated.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: Some believe that the sandwich was a common lunch food for workers in both the cigar factories and sugar mills of Cuba (especially in big cities such as Havana or Santiago de Cuba) and the cigar factories of Key West by the 1860s. Historian Loy Glenn Westfall states that the sandwich was "born in Cuba and educated in Key West."


title: Cuban sandwich

text: The cigar industry in Florida shifted to Tampa in the mid-1880s, when the immigrant community of Ybor City was founded by cigar manufacturer Vicente Martinez-Ybor. Tens of thousands of Cuban, Spanish, and Italian workers moved to the area over following decades, jumpstarting the growth of Tampa from a village to a bustling city. The first recorded mentions of a distinct Cuban sandwich survive in descriptions of workers' cafés in Ybor City and nearby West Tampa from around 1900, leading other historians to theorize that the sandwich as now constituted first appeared there. A travel article published by the "Mason City Globe Gazette" in 1934 said that Tampa's cooking was "much more distinctive than elsewhere in the state" and lists Cuban sandwiches (along with Cuban bread) among the city's "signature foods". Researcher Andrew Huse states that "the old 'mixtos' coalesced into something more distinct – the Cuban sandwiches we know and love – an original Tampa creation."


title: Cuban sandwich

text: By the 1960s, Cuban sandwiches were also common on Miami cafeteria and restaurant menus, as the city had gained a large influx of Cuban residents after Fidel Castro's 1959 rise to power in their native land. The Communist Revolution caused a wave of Cuban expatriates to settle in other locations as well, and they brought their culture and cuisine with them. Cuban sandwiches and variations thereof are now served in various Cuban exile communities in places such as New York City, New Jersey, Chicago, and Puerto Rico, among others.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: Although there is some debate as to the contents of a "true" Cuban sandwich, most are generally agreed upon. The traditional Cuban sandwich starts with Cuban bread. The loaf is sliced into lengths of 8–12 inches (20–30 cm), lightly buttered or brushed with olive oil on the crust, and cut in half horizontally. A coat of yellow mustard is spread on the bread and the meats are added in layers: roast pork (Pernil or sometimes marinated in mojo), glazed ham, and salami. Swiss cheese and thinly sliced dill pickles complete the traditional ingredients.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: Once assembled, a Cuban sandwich can be toasted in a sandwich press called a "plancha", which is similar to a panini press but without grooved surfaces. The "plancha" both heats and compresses the sandwich, which remains in the press until the bread surface is slightly crispy and the cheese has begun to melt. It is usually cut into diagonal halves before serving.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: The main regional disagreement regarding the Cuban sandwich involves salami, and its inclusion or lack thereof is a major point of contention in the Tampa-Miami Cuban sandwich rivalry. While salami is not added to a South Florida Cuban sandwich, in Tampa, Genoa salami is traditionally layered with the other meats, probably due to the influence of Italian immigrants who lived side by side with Cubans and Spaniards in Ybor City at the beginning of the 20th century. Tampa's recipe has been consistent for decades; a 1934 travel article described a Tampa Cuban sandwich as a "complete meal" consisting of ham, lean pork, Swiss cheese, soft salami, dill pickle and a "liberal moistening of mustard" served on "very crisp and crusty" Cuban bread. These ingredients were reiterated twenty-seven years later in the first and all subsequent editions of "The Gasparilla Cookbook" (1961), a still-popular collection of Tampa cuisine.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: Another regional variation involves mayonnaise, lettuce, and tomato. These additions are frowned upon by most traditionalists in Tampa and Miami, but are usually included in the "Cuban mix" variant popular in Key West.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: The Florida-based grocery chain Publix sells both ready-made Cuban sandwiches to go and hot pressed Cuban sandwiches made to order in their delis. The Publix deli recipe uses Boar’s Head brand ham and pork unless otherwise specified along with French bread rather than traditional Cuban bread. This Cuban variation is consistently one of Publix’s bestselling sandwiches in its Florida stores.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: The Cuban sandwich is at the center of a long-running semi-serious rivalry between Tampa and Miami, with various community leaders claiming to be home of the best. The debate has been covered by several national and international news outlets, and a related content dispute on the English Wikipedia article about the sandwich was the subject of a 2007 column in the "Tampa Tribune".


title: Cuban sandwich

text: During a 2012 flare-up of the debate, the Tampa City Council voted to name the "Historic Tampa Cuban Sandwich" as the city's official "signature sandwich", leading to several more rounds of banter between public figures in Tampa and Miami.


title: Cuban sandwich

text: A similar sandwich is the medianoche ("midnight") sandwich; as the name suggests, the sandwich originated as a late-night snack, likely in the night clubs of Havana. The medianoche contains the same ingredients as the Cuban sandwich, but is smaller and, unlike a Cuban, is served on yellow-colored egg bread (similar to challah), which is softer and sweeter than Cuban bread.


title: Ross Marquand

text: Roscoe Wayne Marquand (born August 22, 1981) is an American actor. He has played Aaron on the television series "The Walking Dead" since 2015, Red Skull and Ultron in various projects connected to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and has voiced numerous characters on the streaming television series "Invincible" (2021).


title: Ross Marquand

text: Marquand was born in Fort Collins, Colorado. His initial foray into acting began at the age of nine when he played a small part in a church play. Soon thereafter, he joined the Boy Scouts of America (where he attained the rank of Eagle Scout) and began impersonating celebrities at campfire ceremonies.


title: Ross Marquand

text: While in attendance at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Marquand starred in several productions including "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Passion of Dracula", and "The Cherry Orchard". He graduated with a BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) in Theatre Performance.


title: Ross Marquand

text: After college he moved to Los Angeles and quickly garnered attention in several film and television projects. He played a crooked cop with entertaining gusto in The Sabi Company's "Down and Dangerous" (2013). Marquand portrayed screen legend Paul Newman on AMC's "Mad Men". Marquand is best known for the recurring role of Aaron on "The Walking Dead", the popular TV series' first gay male character.


title: Ross Marquand

text: Since 2018, he has portrayed and voiced two characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Red Skull in the films "" (2018) and "" (2019), as well as Ultron in the virtual reality experience "" (2019) and as an alternate version of the character in the film "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" (2022), replacing Hugo Weaving and James Spader. Marquand voiced both characters in the television series "What If...?" (2021).


title: Ross Marquand

text: An accomplished voiceover actor, Ross has lent his talents to productions such as "Phineas and Ferb", "Conan", and video games like "Battlefield Hardline". He is also known for impersonating a plethora of celebrities including Michael Caine, Sylvester Stallone, Matthew McConaughey and over 50 others. This expertise led to a starring and producing role on Pop TV's "Impress Me", helmed by Ben Shelton and Rainn Wilson.


title: Armagnac

text: Armagnac (, ) is a distinctive kind of brandy produced in the Armagnac region in Gascony, southwest France. It is distilled from wine usually made from a blend of grapes including Baco 22A, Colombard, Folle blanche and Ugni blanc, traditionally using column stills rather than the pot stills used in the production of cognac, which is made predominantly from ugni blanc grapes. The resulting spirit is then aged in oak barrels before release. Production is overseen by the Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (INAO) and the Bureau National Interprofessionel de l'Armagnac (BNIA).


title: Armagnac

text: Armagnac was one of the first areas in France to begin distilling spirits, but the overall volume of production is far smaller than cognac production and therefore is less known outside Europe. In addition, it is for the most part made and sold by small producers, whereas cognac production is dominated by big-name brands, especially Courvoisier (owned by Beam Suntory), Hennessy (LVMH), Martell (Pernod Ricard), and Rémy Martin (Rémy Cointreau).


title: Armagnac

text: Armagnac is the oldest brandy (and liquor) recorded to be still distilled in the world. In 1310, Prior Vital du Four, a cardinal, wrote of its 40 virtues. Vital du Four was born in Bazas, in the centre of Armagnac, and was prior of Eauze, today the location of the BNIA. However, there is no evidence that he ever visited Eauze, much less that he was writing specifically about distilled eau de vie from Armagnac. In the past it was consumed as other liquors for its therapeutic benefits.


title: Armagnac

text: Between the 15th and 17th centuries, Armagnac was traded on the markets of Saint-Sever, Mont-de-Marsan, and Aire-sur-l'Adour. Subsequently, Dutch merchants began promoting the trade more widely and providing or financing alembics.


title: Armagnac

text: The first record of Armagnac distillation comes only in 1646, with the purchase of an alembic. In the following century, Armagnac was served in the palace of Versailles and by 1800, most of the Armagnac region was dedicated to the production of the brandy. In 1818, a patent for a continuous distillation alembic led to the main difference between Armagnac and Cognac, which is double distilled in batches.


title: Armagnac

text: The French gourmet dish ortolan has traditionally been prepared by force-feeding an ortolan bunting before drowning it in Armagnac and roasting it. The dish is now legally prohibited due to laws protecting the bird.


title: Armagnac

text: The Armagnac region lies between the Adour and Garonne rivers in the foothills of the Pyrenees. The region was granted "Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée" (AOC) status in 1936. The official production area is divided into three districts that lie in the "departements" of Gers, Landes, and Lot-et-Garonne. The region contains of grape-producing vines. The Fallières Decree of 25 May 1909 names the three districts as:


title: Armagnac

text: Each of these areas is controlled by separate AOC regulations. The newest appellation "Blanche d'Armagnac" ('white Armagnac') was established to allow the production and export of clear, unaged brandies.


title: Armagnac

text: Armagnac is traditionally distilled once, resulting in alcohol content between 52% and 60%. The result is a more fragrant and flavorful spirit than cognac, where double distillation takes place. Long aging in oak barrels softens the taste and causes the development of more complex flavours and a brown colour. Ageing in the barrel removes a part of the alcohol and water by evaporation (known as "part des anges"—"angels' tribute" or "angels' share") and allows more complex aromatic compounds to appear by oxidation, which further modifies the flavour. Since alcohol evaporates faster than water, the alcohol degree is naturally reduced by an average of 0.4% per year depending on the characteristics of the cellars (average temperature and humidity). When the Armagnac is considered as matured, it is transferred to large glass bottles (called "Dame Jeanne") for storage. The main difference between Armagnac and other spirits is that, due to its relatively low alcoholic content, it is generally not diluted with water.


title: Armagnac

text: Armagnac is sold under several classifications, mostly referring to the age of the constituent brandies. Armagnac is allowed to be sold under vintages. When Armagnacs of different ages have been blended, the age on the bottle refers to the youngest component. A three-star, or "VS", Armagnac is a mix of several Armagnacs that have seen at least one year of ageing in wood. For "VSOP" the ageing is at least four years, and for "XO" and "Hors d'âge" ten years. Older and better Armagnacs are often sold as vintages, with the bottles containing Armagnac from a single year, the year being noted on the bottle, aged of a minimum of 10 years. Vintages flavour and appearance change depending on factors including the grape, ageing time, barrel used for ageing, grape variety, weather that year, storage location and more.


title: Armagnac

text: The Armagnac region produces 3 million bottles a year of brandy, compared to the 220 million produced in Cognac. However, the French drink only 4 million bottles of Cognac compared to 1.5 million of Armagnac.


title: Armagnac

text: Ten different varieties of Armagnac grapes are authorised for use in the production of Armagnac. Of these, four are most common:


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: The Norrmalmstorg robbery was a bank robbery and hostage crisis best known as the origin of the term "Stockholm syndrome". It occurred at the Norrmalmstorg Square in Stockholm, Sweden, in August 1973 and was the first criminal event in Sweden to be covered by live television.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Jan-Erik Olsson was a convicted criminal who had disappeared while on furlough from prison and then held up the Kreditbanken bank, taking four hostages in the process. During the negotiations that followed, Swedish Minister of Justice Lennart Geijer allowed Olsson's former cellmate and friend Clark Olofsson to be brought from prison to the bank. Although Olofsson was a long-time career criminal, it was deemed unlikely that he was in league with Olsson. Famously, the hostages then bonded with their captors and appeared to protect them. It must be noted, however, that the hostages were in fact simply distrustful of the police and their willingness to risk the hostages' lives. Police finally mounted a tear-gas attack five days into the crisis, and the robbers surrendered.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olsson was sentenced to 10 years for the robbery, and Olofsson was ultimately acquitted. The seemingly paradoxical actions of the hostages led to a great deal of academic and public interest in the case, including a 2003 Swedish television film titled "Norrmalmstorg", a 2018 Canadian film titled "Stockholm" and a 2022 Swedish Netflix television series "Clark".


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Jan-Erik Olsson was on leave from prison on August 23, 1973 when he went into Kreditbanken on Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm and attempted to rob it. Swedish police were notified shortly after and arrived on the scene. One officer, Ingemar Warpefeldt, suffered injuries to his hand after Olsson opened fire, while another was ordered to sit in a chair and sing a song. Olsson then took four bank employees hostage: Birgitta Lundblad, Elisabeth Oldgren, Kristin Ehnmark, and Sven Säfström. He demanded his friend Clark Olofsson be brought there, along with three million Swedish kronor, two guns, bulletproof vests, helmets and a Ford Mustang.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olsson was initially misidentified as Kaj Hansson, another escaped prisoner, and someone who specialized in bank robberies.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olsson was a repeat offender who had committed several armed robberies and acts of violence, the first when he had been 16.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: The government gave permission for Olofsson to be brought as a communication link with the police negotiators. The hostage Kristin Enmark said that she felt safe with Olsson and Olofsson but feared that the police might escalate the situation by using violent methods. Olsson and Olofsson barricaded the inner main vault in which they kept the hostages. Negotiators agreed that they could have a car to escape but would not allow them to take hostages with them if they tried to leave.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olsson called Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, said that he would kill the hostages and backed up his threat by grabbing one of them in a stranglehold. She was heard screaming as he hung up. The next day, the hostage Kristin Enmark called Palme, said that she was very displeased with his attitude and asked him to let the robbers and the hostages leave.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olofsson walked around the vault and sang Roberta Flack's "Killing Me Softly". On August 26, the police drilled a hole into the main vault from the apartment above and took a widely circulated photograph of the hostages with Olofsson. Olsson fired his weapon into the hole on two occasions and wounded a police officer in the hand and the face.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olsson had fired his weapon and threatened to kill the hostages if any gas attack was attempted. Nonetheless, on August 28 police used tear gas, and Olsson and Olofsson surrendered after an hour. None of the hostages sustained permanent injuries.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Both Olsson and Olofsson were convicted, and Olofsson was sentenced to an extended prison term for the robbery. He claimed, however, that he had not helped Olsson but had only tried to save the hostages by keeping the situation calm. He was later acquitted in the Svea Court of Appeal and served only the remainder of his prior sentence. He went on to meet the hostage Kristin Enmark several times, and their families became friends. He also committed several more crimes.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: Olsson was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He received many admiring letters from women who found him attractive. (He later got engaged to a woman who was not, despite what some state, one of the former hostages.) After his release, he is alleged to have committed further crimes. After having been on the run from Swedish authorities for ten years for alleged financial crimes, he turned himself in to police in 2006, only to be told that the charges were no longer being actively pursued.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: The hostages sympathised with their captors, which has led to academic interest in the matter. The Swedish term (Norrmalmstorg syndrome), later known as Stockholm syndrome, was coined by the criminologist Nils Bejerot. The hostages, although they were threatened by Olsson, never became violent toward the police or toward each other.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: In 1996, Jan-Erik Olsson moved to northeastern Thailand with his wife and son, and moved back to Sweden in 2013. Olsson's autobiography "Stockholms-syndromet" was published in Sweden in 2009.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: The 2003 television film "", directed by Håkan Lindhé, is loosely based on the events. A fictionalized version of the robbery is told in "Stockholm", a 2018 Canadian film directed by Robert Budreau.


title: Norrmalmstorg robbery

text: In 2022, Netflix produced a six-episode series named "Clark", directed by Jonas Åkerlund and starring Bill Skarsgård as Clark Olofsson.


title: 2022–23 United States network television schedule

text: The 2022–23 network television schedule for the five major English-language commercial broadcast networks in the United States covers the prime time hours from September 2022 to August 2023. The schedule is followed by a list per network of returning series, new series, and series canceled after the 2021–22 television season.


text: NBC was the first to announce its fall schedule on May 16, 2022, via press release, followed by an upfront presentation to advertisers at 11 a.m. Eastern Time. ABC announced its fall schedule on May 17 (with an upfront presentation at 4 p.m. that day), followed by CBS on May 18 (with their upfront presentation at 4 p.m. that day), and The CW on May 19 (with their upfront presentation at 11 a.m. that day). Fox announced its programming on May 16 shortly after NBC (with their upfront presentation at 4 p.m. that day), but released its prime-time schedule (along with their premiere dates) on June 6.


text: PBS is not included, as member television stations have local flexibility over most of their schedules and broadcast times for network shows may vary. Ion Television and MyNetworkTV are also not included since both networks' schedules feature syndicated reruns.


title: Tennessine

text: Tennessine is a synthetic chemical element with the symbol Ts and atomic number 117. It is the second-heaviest known element and the penultimate element of the 7th period of the periodic table.


title: Tennessine

text: The discovery of tennessine was officially announced in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration in April 2010, which makes it the most recently discovered element . One of its daughter isotopes was created directly in 2011, partially confirming the results of the experiment. The experiment itself was repeated successfully by the same collaboration in 2012 and by a joint German–American team in May 2014. In December 2015, the Joint Working Party of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), which evaluates claims of discovery of new elements, recognized the element and assigned the priority to the Russian–American team. In June 2016, the IUPAC published a declaration stating that the discoverers had suggested the name "tennessine" after Tennessee, United States, a name which was officially adopted in November 2016.


title: Tennessine

text: Tennessine may be located in the "island of stability", a concept that explains why some superheavy elements are more stable compared to an overall trend of decreasing stability for elements beyond bismuth on the periodic table. The synthesized tennessine atoms have lasted tens and hundreds of milliseconds. In the periodic table, tennessine is expected to be a member of group 17, all other members of which are halogens. Some of its properties may differ significantly from those of the halogens due to relativistic effects. As a result, tennessine is expected to be a volatile metal that neither forms anions nor achieves high oxidation states. A few key properties, such as its melting and boiling points and its first ionization energy, are nevertheless expected to follow the periodic trends of the halogens.


title: Tennessine

text: In December 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed a joint experiment with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States, to synthesize element 117 — so called for the 117 protons in its nucleus. Their proposal involved fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam, conducted via bombardment of the berkelium target with calcium nuclei: this would complete a set of experiments done at the JINR on the fusion of actinide targets with a calcium-48 beam, which had thus far produced the new elements 113–116 and 118. The ORNL—then the world's only producer of berkelium—could not then provide the element, as they had temporarily ceased production, and re-initiating it would be too costly. Plans to synthesize element 117 were suspended in favor of the confirmation of element 118, which had been produced earlier in 2002 by bombarding a californium target with calcium. The required berkelium-249 is a by-product in californium-252 production, and obtaining the required amount of berkelium was an even more difficult task than obtaining that of californium, as well as costly: It would cost around 3.5 million dollars, and the parties agreed to wait for a commercial order of californium production, from which berkelium could be extracted.


title: Tennessine

text: The JINR team sought to use berkelium because calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons, making a neutron–proton ratio of 1.4; and it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such a large neutron excess. The second-lightest such nucleus, palladium-110 (46 protons, 64 neutrons, neutron–proton ratio of 1.391), is much heavier. Thanks to the neutron excess, the resulting nuclei were expected to be heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability. Of the aimed for 117 protons, calcium has 20, and thus they needed to use berkelium, which has 97 protons in its nucleus.


title: Tennessine

text: In February 2005, the leader of the JINR team — Yuri Oganessian — presented a colloquium at ORNL. Also in attendance were representatives of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who had previously worked with JINR on the discovery of elements 113–116 and 118, and Joseph Hamilton of Vanderbilt University, a collaborator of Oganessian.


title: Tennessine

text: Hamilton checked if the ORNL high-flux reactor produced californium for a commercial order: The required berkelium could be obtained as a by-product. He learned that it did not and there was no expectation for such an order in the immediate future. Hamilton kept monitoring the situation, making the checks once in a while. (Later, Oganessian referred to Hamilton as "the father of 117" for doing this work.)


title: Tennessine

text: ORNL resumed californium production in spring 2008. Hamilton noted the restart during the summer and made a deal on subsequent extraction of berkelium (the price was about $600,000). During a September 2008 symposium at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee celebrating his 50th year on the Physics faculty, he introduced Oganessian to James Roberto (then the deputy director for science and technology at ORNL). They established a collaboration among JINR, ORNL, and Vanderbilt; the team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California, U.S., was soon invited to join.


title: Tennessine

text: In November 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy, which had oversight over the reactor in Oak Ridge, allowed the scientific use of the extracted berkelium. The production lasted 250 days and ended in late December 2008, resulting in 22 milligrams of berkelium, enough to perform the experiment. In January 2009, the berkelium was removed from ORNL's High Flux Isotope Reactor; it was subsequently cooled for 90 days and then processed at ORNL's Radiochemical Engineering and Development Center to separate and purify the berkelium material, which took another 90 days. Its half-life is only 330 days: after that time, half the berkelium produced would have decayed. Because of this, the berkelium target had to be quickly transported to Russia; for the experiment to be viable, it had to be completed within six months of its departure from the United States. The target was packed into five lead containers to be flown from New York to Moscow.


title: Tennessine

text: Russian customs officials twice refused to let the target enter the country because of missing or incomplete paperwork. Over the span of a few days, the target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times. On its arrival in Russia in June 2009, the berkelium was immediately transferred to Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR) in Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, where it was deposited as a 300-nanometer-thin layer on a titanium film. In July 2009, it was transported to Dubna, where it was installed in the particle accelerator at the JINR. The calcium-48 beam was generated by chemically extracting the small quantities of calcium-48 present in naturally occurring calcium, enriching it 500 times. This work was done in the closed town of Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia.


title: Tennessine

text: The experiment began in late July 2009. In January 2010, scientists at the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions announced internally that they had detected the decay of a new element with atomic number 117 via two decay chains: one of an odd–odd isotope undergoing 6 alpha decays before spontaneous fission, and one of an odd–even isotope undergoing 3 alpha decays before fission. The obtained data from the experiment was sent to the LLNL for further analysis. On 9 April 2010, an official report was released in the journal "Physical Review Letters" identifying the isotopes as 117 and 117, which were shown to have half-lives on the order of tens or hundreds of milliseconds. The work was signed by all parties involved in the experiment to some extent: JINR, ORNL, LLNL, RIAR, Vanderbilt, the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S.), and the University of Nevada (Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.), which provided data analysis support. The isotopes were formed as follows:


title: Tennessine

text: All daughter isotopes (decay products) of element 117 were previously unknown; therefore, their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery. In 2011, when one of the decay products (115) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of element 117. The discoverers did not submit a claim for their findings in 2007–2011 when the Joint Working Party was reviewing claims of discoveries of new elements.


title: Tennessine

text: The Dubna team repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of element 117 and confirming their earlier synthesis of element 118 (produced after some time when a significant quantity of the berkelium-249 target had beta decayed to californium-249). The results of the experiment matched the previous outcome; the scientists then filed an application to register the element. In May 2014, a joint German–American collaboration of scientists from the ORNL and the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, claimed to have confirmed discovery of the element. The team repeated the Dubna experiment using the Darmstadt accelerator, creating two atoms of element 117.


title: Tennessine

text: In December 2015, the JWP officially recognized the discovery of 117 on account of the confirmation of the properties of its daughter 115, and thus the listed discoverers — JINR, LLNL, and ORNL — were given the right to suggest an official name for the element. (Vanderbilt was left off the initial list of discoverers in an error that was later corrected.)


title: Tennessine

text: In May 2016, Lund University (Lund, Scania, Sweden) and GSI cast some doubt on the syntheses of elements 115 and 117. The decay chains assigned to 115, the isotope instrumental in the confirmation of the syntheses of elements 115 and 117, were found based on a new statistical method to be too different to belong to the same nuclide with a reasonably high probability. The reported 117 decay chains approved as such by the JWP were found to require splitting into individual data sets assigned to different isotopes of element 117. It was also found that the claimed link between the decay chains reported as from 117 and 115 probably did not exist. (On the other hand, the chains from the non-approved isotope 117 were found to be congruent.) The multiplicity of states found when nuclides that are not even–even undergo alpha decay is not unexpected and contributes to the lack of clarity in the cross-reactions. This study criticized the JWP report for overlooking subtleties associated with this issue, and considered it "problematic" that the only argument for the acceptance of the discoveries of elements 115 and 117 was a link they considered to be doubtful.


title: Tennessine

text: On 8 June 2017, two members of the Dubna team published a journal article answering these criticisms, analysing their data on the nuclides 117 and 115 with widely accepted statistical methods, noted that the 2016 studies indicating non-congruence produced problematic results when applied to radioactive decay: they excluded from the 90% confidence interval both average and extreme decay times, and the decay chains that would be excluded from the 90% confidence interval they chose were more probable to be observed than those that would be included. The 2017 reanalysis concluded that the observed decay chains of 117 and 115 were consistent with the assumption that only one nuclide was present at each step of the chain, although it would be desirable to be able to directly measure the mass number of the originating nucleus of each chain as well as the excitation function of the reaction.


title: Tennessine

text: Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, element 117 should be known as "eka-astatine". Using the 1979 recommendations by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the element was temporarily called "ununseptium" (symbol "Uus") until its discovery was confirmed and a permanent name chosen; the temporary name was formed from Latin roots "one", "one", and "seven", a reference to the element's atomic number 117. Many scientists in the field called it "element 117", with the symbol "E117", "(117)", or "117". According to guidelines of IUPAC valid at the moment of the discovery approval, the permanent names of new elements should have ended in "-ium"; this included element 117, even if the element was a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine"; however, the new recommendations published in 2016 recommended using the "-ine" ending for all new group 17 elements.


title: Tennessine

text: After the original synthesis in 2010, Dawn Shaughnessy of LLNL and Oganessian declared that naming was a sensitive question, and it was avoided as far as possible. However, Hamilton declared that year, "I was crucial in getting the group together and in getting the Bk target essential for the discovery. As a result of that, I'm going to get to name the element. I can't tell you the name, but it will bring distinction to the region." (Hamilton teaches at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.) In a 2015 interview, Oganessian, after telling the story of the experiment, said, "and the Americans named this a tour de force, they had demonstrated they could do [this] with no margin for error. Well, soon they will name the 117th element."


title: Tennessine

text: In March 2016, the discovery team agreed on a conference call involving representatives from the parties involved on the name "tennessine" for element 117. In June 2016, IUPAC published a declaration stating the discoverers had submitted their suggestions for naming the new elements 115, 117, and 118 to the IUPAC; the suggestion for the element 117 was "tennessine", with a symbol of "Ts", after "the region of Tennessee". The suggested names were recommended for acceptance by the IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division; formal acceptance was set to occur after a five-month term following publishing of the declaration expires. In November 2016, the names, including tennessine, were formally accepted. Concerns that the proposed symbol "Ts" may clash with a notation for the tosyl group used in organic chemistry were rejected, following existing symbols bearing such dual meanings: Ac (actinium and acetyl) and Pr (praseodymium and propyl). The naming ceremony for moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson was held on 2 March 2017 at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow; a separate ceremony for tennessine alone had been held at ORNL in January 2017.


title: Tennessine

text: Other than nuclear properties, no properties of tennessine or its compounds have been measured; this is due to its extremely limited and expensive production and the fact that it decays very quickly. Properties of tennessine remain unknown and only predictions are available.


title: Tennessine

text: The stability of nuclei quickly decreases with the increase in atomic number after curium, element 96, whose half-life is four orders of magnitude longer than that of any subsequent element. All isotopes with an atomic number above 101 undergo radioactive decay with half-lives of less than 30 hours. No elements with atomic numbers above 82 (after lead) have stable isotopes. This is because of the ever-increasing Coulomb repulsion of protons, so that the strong nuclear force cannot hold the nucleus together against spontaneous fission for long. Calculations suggest that in the absence of other stabilizing factors, elements with more than 104 protons should not exist. However, researchers in the 1960s suggested that the closed nuclear shells around 114 protons and 184 neutrons should counteract this instability, creating an "island of stability" where nuclides could have half-lives reaching thousands or millions of years. While scientists have still not reached the island, the mere existence of the superheavy elements (including tennessine) confirms that this stabilizing effect is real, and in general the known superheavy nuclides become exponentially longer-lived as they approach the predicted location of the island. Tennessine is the second-heaviest element created so far, and all its known isotopes have half-lives of less than one second. Nevertheless, this is longer than the values predicted prior to their discovery: the predicted lifetimes for Ts and Ts used in the discovery paper were 10 ms and 45 ms respectively, while the observed lifetimes were 21 ms and 112 ms respectively. The Dubna team believes that the synthesis of the element is direct experimental proof of the existence of the island of stability.