Has the Supreme Court 'Retired' A 50-Year-Old Practice?
There is considerable debate in online legal circles about a Supreme Court decision released Monday and whether it ends a 50-year-old practice in civil procedure that makes it easier for people to initiate lawsuits.
In Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, major telephone companies had been accused of conspiring to suppress competition.
The court decided in favor of what is now known as Verizon. But it also slammed a 50-year-old practice developed in a previous ruling that prevented lawsuits from being dismissed for failing to state a claim "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Mostly used in what are called "notice pleadings," it meant plaintiffs only had to give "a short and plain statement of their cause of action" in their initial complaint. A plaintiff who had a good but not perfect case could put the other side on notice of a lawsuit and then collect evidence during discovery.
In this posting on the Civil Procedure Prof Blog, Professor Scott Dodson gives a quite readable overview for the lay person. Scotus Blog looks at the case as well and wonders if this means the end of notice pleading, which would have a considerable impact on the ability to sue a company.
2:54 PM ET | 05-24-2007 | permalink
