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."
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.
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.
The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine whether the Table S-3 rule was adequately supported by the administrative record. While the Vermont Yankee case was before the Supreme Court, the NRC proposed a new Table S-3 rule, which maintained the "zero release" assumption for the long-term storage of spent fuel.
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.
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), [1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) [2] to require that federal courts grant a party leave to amend a pleading absent special circumstances such as bad faith or prejudice to the opposing party.