After fifty years of clarity and continuity, pleading standards are now the subject of confusion and debate. In 2007, the Supreme Court, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, replaced Conley v. Gibson’s “no set of facts” standard with the plausibility standard, under which a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Two years later, Ashcroft v. Iqbal confirmed that the plausibility standard is a trans-substantive pleading standard applicable to all claims brought in federal court, but did little to clarify the meaning of “plausibility.” As a result, plaintiffs must meet and courts must apply a vague and indeterminate standard that has generated a variety of conflicting interpretations. Moreover, because both Iqbal and Twombly have language suggesting that the plausibility standard significantly raised the pleading bar, there is a risk that courts will read the opinions as imposing a stringent merits determination at the pleading stage, thereby unsettling years of pleading jurisprudence that has not been repudiated. Rather than embrace the most extreme aspects and language of these opinions, this Note seeks to develop a definition of “plausibility” that explains the results of Iqbal and Twombly, preserves the basic tenets of simplified pleading, and brings clarity to the keystone of the federal procedural system. It first undertakes a comprehensive survey of the post-Twombly definitions of “plausibility.” Although these definitions provide useful guidance in defining “plausibility,” standing alone they are incomplete. It then argues that plausibility is best understood as a minimal standard independent of notice and requiring only that a complaint support the reasonable inference that the plaintiff has a viable claim.
News & Events
-
Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times
The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]
-
Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed
The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.
-
Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15
The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.
Recent Issues
- Volume 97 – No. 5
- Volume 97 – No. 4
- Volume 97 – No. 3
- Volume 97 – No. 2
- Volume 97 – No. 1
- Volume 96 – No. 6
- Volume 96 – No. 5
- Volume 96 – No. 4
- Volume 96 – No. 3
- Volume 96 – No. 2
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1