Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Solving A Pleading Plague: Why Federal Courts Should Strike Insufficient Affirmative Defenses Under The Twombly-Iqbal Plausibility Standard, Nathan A. Leber
Solving A Pleading Plague: Why Federal Courts Should Strike Insufficient Affirmative Defenses Under The Twombly-Iqbal Plausibility Standard, Nathan A. Leber
Cleveland State Law Review
The plausibility standard is the remedy to the rampant pleading of meritless affirmative defenses in federal courts. Set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, and later clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the plausibility standard requires pleadings to contain sufficient factual allegations that give rise to a plausible claim for relief. In both Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court used the plausibility approach to dismiss factually-deficient complaints. Applying the plausibility test to insufficient affirmative defenses produces the same result. The central proposition of this Note is that federal courts should analyze affirmative defenses under the Twombly-Iqbal plausibility standard. In order …
Using The Scientific Method In The Law: Examining State Interlocutory Appeals Procedures That Would Improve Uniformity, Efficiency, And Fairness In The Federal Appellate System, Hannah M. Smith
Cleveland State Law Review
[T}he current use of the federal interlocutory appeal process operates much like an appeal-less system. A pretrial motion is filed, the interlocutory order is given, and the petition for interlocutory review is usually denied. Thus, the case continues. It may continue into settlement negotiations or go to trial where the losing party files an appeal. That final appeal could find that the lower court erred, rendering that trial meritless. In reaching any of those stages, the adversely affected party more than likely devoted unnecessary time, resources, and finances in the case. Additionally, the parties are often unable to predict success …