Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- St. Mary’s University School of Law (2)
- 12(b)(6) motions (1)
- Adam J. MacLeod (1)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (1)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (1)
-
- Churches (1)
- Commercial zoning (1)
- Conley v. Gibson (1)
- Federal district courts (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Judicial experience (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Patricia W. Moore (1)
- RLUIPA (1)
- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (1)
- Residential zoning (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- “plausibility” standard (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Penumbral Thinking Revisited: Metaphor In Legal Argumentation, Chris Rideout
Penumbral Thinking Revisited: Metaphor In Legal Argumentation, Chris Rideout
Faculty Articles
In the modern jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, the controversy over the place of metaphor came directly into the spotlight in Griswold v. Connecticut. Justice Douglas, writing for the majority and relying in part on metaphoric reasoning for his argument, located a right to privacy in the penumbral area formed by emanations from specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights. The various opinions in Griswold represent a divide regarding the place of metaphoric reasoning in legal argument. Justice Douglas employs metaphoric reasoning, while several of his fellow justices either avoid it or reject it. Because the case has …
The Tao Of Pleading: Do Twombly And Iqbal Matter Empirically, Patricia W. Moore
The Tao Of Pleading: Do Twombly And Iqbal Matter Empirically, Patricia W. Moore
Faculty Articles
In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, sending “shockwaves” through the federal litigation bar. Seemingly without prior warning, the Court abrogated “the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure 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”—the standard for deciding 12(b)(6) motions first stated fifty years earlier in Conley v. Gibson. To replace the old rule, the Court announced a new “plausibility” standard: that a complaint …
A Non-Fatal Collision: Interpreting Rluipa Where Religious Land Uses And Community Interests Meet, Adam J. Macleod
A Non-Fatal Collision: Interpreting Rluipa Where Religious Land Uses And Community Interests Meet, Adam J. Macleod
Faculty Articles
Imagine a large church located in a multi-family residential zoning district, where commercial uses are not permitted and religious uses are permitted by special use permit. The church applies for a special use permit to open a coffee shop, which would operate throughout the week during normal business hours and would supplement and support the church's other ministries. At the hearing on the permit application, many neighbors object. They fear increased traffic, visual blight, and safety hazards for their children. The city denies the permit. The church files an action against the city, alleging that the city has substantially burdened …