Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Beyond Common Sense: A Social Psychological Study Of Iqbal's Effect On Claims Of Race Discrimination, Victor D. Quintanilla
Beyond Common Sense: A Social Psychological Study Of Iqbal's Effect On Claims Of Race Discrimination, Victor D. Quintanilla
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) once operated as a notice pleading rule, requiring plaintiffs to set forth only a "short and plain" statement of their claim. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and then Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the United States Supreme Court recast Rule 8(a) into a plausibility pleading standard. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal requires federal courts, when deciding whether a complaint is plausible, to draw on their "judicial experience and common sense." Courts apply this standard …
Are Class Actions Unconstitutional?, Alexandra D. Lahav
Are Class Actions Unconstitutional?, Alexandra D. Lahav
Michigan Law Review
Are class actions unconstitutional? Many people-defendants and conservative legislators, not to mention scholars at the American Enterprise Institute-would like them to be. For opponents of the class action, Martin Redish's book Wholesale Justice provides some of the most theoretically sophisticated arguments available. The book is a major contribution both to the scholarly literature on class actions and to the larger political debate about this powerful procedural device. The arguments it presents will surely be debated in courtrooms as well as classrooms.
How Goliath Won: The Future Implications Of Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Suzette M. Malveaux
How Goliath Won: The Future Implications Of Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
No abstract provided.
Clearing Civil Procedure Hurdles In The Quest For Justice, Suzette M. Malveaux
Clearing Civil Procedure Hurdles In The Quest For Justice, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
No abstract provided.
Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael Steven Green
Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael Steven Green
Michigan Law Review
According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal court interpreting state law must decide as the state's supreme court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must decide as the sister state's supreme court would. Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming that …