Follow POL on Twitter Beck and Herrmann dip into (as they have again and again) the steady stream of recent law school discussions of Twombly, Iqbal, and the tightening of pleading standards. Like the Supreme Court -- but unlike so many of the academic commentators -- they consider it a step forward to protect litigants from the costs of process inflicted by legal actions based on vague or unfounded pleadings.
"A Twombly of Scholarship"
Related Entries:
- Johnson & Johnson lawsuit thrown out
- "Twombly is the Logical Extension of the Mathews v. Eldridge Test to Discovery"
- "The Costs of Heightened Pleading"
- In defense of Iqbal and Twombly
- Trial Lawyers, Inc.: K Street -- Federal Government Relations (II)
- Trial Lawyers, Inc.: K Street -- Foundations
- Specter's bill to overturn Stoneridge
- Back to the bad old days on pleading?
- Iqbal and pleading, cont'd
- Iqbal: High court reins in liberal pleading
- Twombly and antitrust
- Twombly pleading under attack
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |
