Question - Civ Pro E&E, Gannon Forum

[inchoate_con]

If you have the newest version, does he covers Twonbly in light of Ashcroft v. Iqbal? Iqbal is probably too recent, but thought I'd ask before ordering it.

[kalvano]

I didn't see it, but all you really need to know is that it changed notice pleading standards. "A mere cursory allegation is not enough."

Now you actually have to be kind of specific in the pleading.

[Lonagan]

As already noted, the substantive issue in Twombley and Iqbal is pretty simple, namely the requirement that a pleading include facts with sufficient specificity to nudge the complaint from mere possibility to plausibility. You will get your exam points from noting the Stevens dissent in Twombley and discussing other cases decided at about the same time that diverge from the holding in Iqbal, which your casebook should discuss. At least the current Yeazell edition has a goo discussion of those issues.

[inchoate_con]

I didn't see it.

Thx. Appreciate the other responses, too.

[zeth006]

I'm guessing the new standard (if we can call it that) will occupy a roman numeral or block letter in our outlines?

[Bustang]

Just write the following on your exam: "Twombly, with Iqball confirming its Rule 8(a) interpretation, took a gigantic dump on Conley and Form 11."


Then proceed to the next question.