Ads
related to: rule 8 fed civ pro case
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]
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."
The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question (most commonly when sitting in diversity jurisdiction, but also when applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims factually related to a federal question or in an adversary proceeding in ...
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6) Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal ), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.
Case history; Prior: Mottley v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 150 F. 406 (C.C.W.D. Ky. 1907) Subsequent: 133 Ky. 652, 118 S.W. 982 (1909); reversed, 219 U.S. 467 (1911): Holding; A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by what means federal courts are obliged to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction.
However, the rule places no limits on the number of requests which may be made of either litigant. State court rules, however, may be stricter than this. Notably, under Rule 36(a)(3), [1] requests for admission are automatically deemed admitted in U.S. federal courts if the opponent fails to timely respond or object. The opponent bears the ...