Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Clermont on Twombly-Iqbal's Myths

Prof. Kevin Clermont (Cornell) has posted on SSRN his essay Three Myths About Twombly-Iqbal. Here's the abstract:

This essay tries to convey the meaning of the recent revolutionary cases on federal pleading law. To do so, it refutes the three leading myths about the Twombly and Iqbal cases and thereby establishes these three propositions: First, the Supreme Court has not revived code-based fact pleading. This first conclusion implies that the codes’ law/fact distinction plays no role in applying the new screening of allegations for conclusoriness, and it also implies that the courts should not apply the new test for plausibility to each allegation but only to the ultimate assertion of liability. Second, we academics must beware of overstating the scope of the new cases. Their holdings apply only to claimants’ pleadings, and indeed only to allegations on the merits. Third, we must also beware of reading optimistically the opinions’ evident confusions to infer an aimless Court. Its rather steady purpose indicates that the Justices mean business as pleading revolutionaries.

--A

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/civpro/2010/06/clermont-on-twomblyiqbals-myths.html

Recent Scholarship, Twombly/Iqbal | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment