Eugenie Danglars wrote:Yay! Congrats. But how do you hate civpro? It's beautiful!
I don't understand how anyone could consider Civil Procedure an enjoyable class. It's like enjoying baseball not for the game, but for the commissioners ability to set coordinate a season.
On that note though, just got back from 8 hours with Richard Freer w/ BarBri doing CivPro review... Holy fuck! That pretty much took most all of my fears away and I feel totally capable of tackling anything my prof could throw at me. Seriously, if anyone gets a chance to do so, go to one of his lectures (He was in Philly today, will be on NYC tomorrow; so any NY folks, go check it out.)
Well, now that my CivPro outline is out of the way, as is my Torts. I just have to worry about Contracts which we've been doing hypos almost everyday since the beginning of the semester, so feeling decent enough about it.
That said, I'm still panicking a bit. This is for real and I really worry about my performance....
we go to the same school! Didn't think anyone else from our school was posting in this thread. I skipped his lecture because I've watched the relevant parts online and it's not too helpful with the way our professor teaches. Also, I actually really enjoy civ pro. Probably my 2nd favorite class this semester
TheFutureLawyer wrote:As far as Iqbal/Twombly;
On a practical level, Twombly and Iqbal establish a clear practice and procedure for evaluating a complaint. First, district judges must pore through the complaint for any allegations that appear “conclusory”—allegations that are “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” In other words, judges should keep an eye out for allegations containing little more than elements of the legal claim at issue. Then, judges should weigh the remaining facts against the prevailing legal standard and determine if the claim crosses over the still-somewhat-muddy threshold of “plausibility.”
I remember looking that up when we first read the cases. Shows that it's actually not that complicated (unless you are dealing with a real life case that is; on exams we just need to apply the doctrine in a non-laughable way):
Step 1; ignore the conclusory allegations.
Step 2; do the remaining allegations plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?
Just wanted to point out that I still think it's kinda bullshit.
wouldn't it be:
Step 1: ignore the conclusory allegations
Step 2: does the evidence
plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?
Or is it something like Step 2: does the evidence + plausible (?) inferences suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?
Or none of the above?
Our professor made sure to make it clear to us that you don't
ignore conclusory allegations. They just aren't entitled to the presumption of truth that ordinarily applies at the pleading stage.
The plaintiff must allege specific facts that if true, establish a context within which the core allegation may plausibly be inferred.
So basically, separate out the conclusory stuff, and then look at all the facts (which are given the assumption of truth), plus interpret the conclusory stuff together with the facts and see if it's plausible.
Not 100% sure on how the conclusory allegations are determined, I think as someone earlier said, they're based on a judge's intuition basically