Top Law Schools

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!

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.

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

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

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.

Thanks everyone! that helps