June 5, 2007
Supremes Again Interpret 8(c)
Although it doesn't add a lot to the Twombly case, the court again emphasized that Rule 8(c) doesn't require pleading evidence, just basic notice. Erickson v. Pardus, available here.
Justice Thomas dissented. The man's reasoning is sound, given his perspective, but seems a bit detached from the procedural posture of the case. No one joined him.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supremes Again Interpret 8(c):