Ads
related to: rule 8 fed civ pro case digest summary full
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that provided a basis for a broad reading of the "short and plain statement" requirement for pleading under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [1]
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure.Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Rule 8(b) states that the defendant's answer must admit or deny every element of the plaintiff's claim. Rule 8(c) requires that the defendant's answer must state any affirmative defenses. Rule 8(d) maintains that each allegation be "simple, concise, and direct" but allows "2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically."
As of 2017, it had been cited over 85,000 times, mostly in lower courts. It has likely made it harder for civil rights cases to proceed through the federal judiciary. [16] Writing in 2017, Stanford Law professor Shirin Sinnar [Wikidata] argued that the case mostly ignored the real center of the case: Iqbal himself. Sinnar noted that the court ...
Audi and Volkswagen removed the case from Creek County into federal district court in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where a jury sided with the two car companies. [1] The Tulsa jury indicated that they believed the speed of Lloyd Hull's car, rather than the Audi's gas tank, was responsible for the fire.
Section 15 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provided: [A]ll the said courts of the United States, shall have power in the trial of actions at law, on motion and due notice thereof being given, to require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the ...
Burger King also invoked the Court's original jurisdiction over disputes arising under federal trademark law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The District Court held that Florida had jurisdiction because of a statute that allowed the state to extend jurisdiction to anyone breaching a contract within the state.
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. [1]