FRCP 8 Pleading: Supreme Court Doctrine 1957-2011
University of California Hastings College of the Law
Colin P. Starger
University of Baltimore - School of Law
November 6, 2013
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal are the most important pleadings decisions the Supreme Court has ever issued. Yet the voluminous commentary on these decisions has tended to gloss over the complicated genealogy of the Court's pleadings decisions from Conley v. Gibson to today. In particular, a number of under-appreciated cases, including Associated General, Papasan, and Broudo, laid foundation for the breakout Twombly decision. Commentary has further tended to elide subsequent cases, which appear to move away from Twombly and Iqbal, at least in result.
We map Twombly and Iqbal, along with their progenitors and their progeny, over time. Our depiction reveals that, prior to 2005, the Court maintained a relatively consistent adherence to very liberal pleading, with one outlier (Papasan), which was not cited during this time. From 2005 to 2009, the Court's pleading standards became stricter. Twombly resurrected Papasan and questioned many of the prior decisions, and Iqbal represents the nadir of pleading liberality. The one outlier is Erickson, which is potentially distinguishable as a pro se case. In 2011, however, the Court seemed to relax pleading again, upholding complaints in two cases, Matrixx and Skinner. Skinner even cited to the 2002 case of Swierkiewicz but not to either Twombly or Iqbal.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 1
Keywords: Twombly, Iqbal, Twiqbal, pleading, Rule 8, Conley, Swierkiewicz, Papasan, Broudo, Matrixx, Skinner, plausibilityworking papers series
Date posted: November 8, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.297 seconds