Follow POL on Twitter Twombly and Iqbal establish a modest pleading standard requiring a complaint to be "plausible." The legal and academic left has been up in arms over this. Beck asks the question I've been asking for a while. "Why should the legal system tolerate the filing of implausible complaints?" I'd recommend the excellent post even if it didn't cite my previous work.
In defense of Iqbal and Twombly
Related Entries:
- ยง 1920 and e-discovery costs
- Around the web, March 13
- Johnson & Johnson lawsuit thrown out
- "Twombly is the Logical Extension of the Mathews v. Eldridge Test to Discovery"
- Why is the Eastern District of Texas home to so many patent trolls?
- Loser pays in action: punishment for a patent troll
- Around the web, July 15
- How discovery rules enrich the legal profession at the expense of the social good
- "$7 million to sue Wal-Mart"?
- Around the web, June 18
- Terrible 'Sunshine in Litigation Act' rises again
- "A nation of lawyers and judges"
- Nevada Supreme Court upholds 'civil death penalty'
- "The Costs of Heightened Pleading"
- Around the web, December 9
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
