Page 1 of 1

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:23 pm
by 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!

Re: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:37 pm
by 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.

Re: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:39 pm
by 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

Re: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:55 pm
by 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

Re: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:33 pm
by 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.

Re: Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Iqbal

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:15 pm
by Mr.Feeny
Thanks everyone! that helps