Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Iqbal And Bad Apples, Michael C. Dorf
Iqbal And Bad Apples, Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
In addition to its important implications for federal civil procedure, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal put the imprimatur of the Supreme Court on a troubling narrative of the excesses carried out by the Bush Administration in the name of fighting terrorism. In this “few bad-apples narrative,” harsh treatment of detainees—especially in the immediate wake of the attacks of September 11th, but also years later in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Guantanamo Bay detention center, and elsewhere—was the work of a small number of relatively low-ranking military and civilian officials who went beyond the limits of the …
Why Heightened Pleading - Why Now?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Why Heightened Pleading - Why Now?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Inventing Tests, Destabilizing Systems, Kevin M. Clermont, Stephen C. Yeazell
Inventing Tests, Destabilizing Systems, Kevin M. Clermont, Stephen C. Yeazell
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the law on pleading by its suggestive Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and definitive Ashcroft v. Iqbal. But these decisions did more than redefine the pleading rules: by inventing a foggy test for the threshold stage of every lawsuit, they have destabilized the entire system of civil litigation. This destabilization should rekindle a wide conversation about fundamental choices made in designing our legal system.
Those choices are debatable. Thus, the bone this Article picks with the Court is not that it took the wrong path for pleading, but that it blazed a new and unclear …