Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal Forum

[Mr.Feeny]

I just wanted to clarify: do these two cases offer differing standards? It seems like they both say "plausibility" but I think I must be missing a distinction because I doubt our prof would have assigned us two cases that say the same thing...

Thanks!

[maximator]

I think the big deal was you could read Twombly just to apply to big complicated anti-trust type cases but Iqbal indicates plausibility might go much further, to civil rights and the like.

[DoubleChecks]

i think you can also read into a different level of plausibility...dont have my notes on me, but there was a distinction, with Iqbal being 'harsher' overall -- least thats what i remember from last yr haha

[kalvano]

From months ago -


· Under Sierocinski and Conley, complaints did not have to be specific – notice pleading
· Under Iqbal and Twombly, complaints must be well-pleaded – mere conclusory allegations are not enough
· Iqbal (built on Twombly) – Claim must be plausible, not merely conceivable
o Can’t just allege conspiracy – Claimant must state why something is illegal or offer some type of proof or doubt

[random5483]

Twombly and Iqbal basically say the same thing. The key difference is that the writer of the majority opinion of Twombly dissents on Iqbal (Judge Stevens I think). After Twombly there was some confusion as to whether or not the plausibility standard applied to cases other than anti-trust cases. The Iqbal decision clarified that the Twombly standard applies to all civil cases. Other than that, Iqbal basically says the same thing that Twombly does.

[Mr.Feeny]

Thanks everyone! that helps