Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (1)
- Appellate Courts (1)
- Appellate Review (1)
- Burden Shifting (1)
-
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil procedure -- United States -- Cases (1)
- Class actions (Civil procedure) -- United States -- States (1)
- Class-action (1)
- Commonality (1)
- Commonality and the Constitution (1)
- Complaints (1)
- Conley v. Gibson (1)
- Constitutional law -- United States -- Cases (1)
- DACA (1)
- DAPA (1)
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (1)
- Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (1)
- District Courts (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1)
- Error Correction (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Federal Rules of CIvil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal courts of law (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Can Speech Act Theory Save Notice Pleading?, Susan E. Provenzano
Can Speech Act Theory Save Notice Pleading?, Susan E. Provenzano
Indiana Law Journal
Countless scholars have debated—and lower courts have attempted to apply—the plausibility pleading regime that the Supreme Court introduced in Twombly and Iqbal. Iqbal took Twombly’s requirement that a complaint plead plausibly and turned it into a two-step test. Under that test, the life or death of a lawsuit rests on the distinction between “well-pleaded” and “conclusory” allegations. Only the former are assumed true on a motion to dismiss. Seven decades of pleading precedent had taken a sensible, if unstable, approach to the truth assumption, making a single cut between factual contentions (assumed true) and legal conclusions (ignored). But Iqbal redrew …
An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich
An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich
Indiana Law Journal
District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …
Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam Steinman
Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam Steinman
Indiana Law Journal
Every appellate decision typically begins with the standard of appellate review. The Supreme Court has shown considerable interest in selecting the standard of appellate review for particular issues, frequently granting certiorari in order to decide whether de novo or deferential review governs certain trial court rulings. This Article critiques the Court's framework for making this choice and questions the desirability of assigning distinct standards of appellate review on an issue-by-issue basis. Rather, the core functions of appellate courts are better served by a single template for review that dispenses with the recurring uncertainty over which standard governs which trial court …
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Indiana Law Journal
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that the allegations of pay discrimination in a case brought by over one million female employees lacked sufficient commonality to warrant class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Though the case was expressly decided under the Federal Rules, some well-known employer groups have begun to advance the argument that Wal-Mart was decided on constitutional grounds. These advocates maintain that the Supreme Court’s decision creates a commonality standard for all class-action plaintiffs—regardless of whether those litigants bring their claims in federal or state court. …