The impact of two landmark Supreme Court rulings that changed the standards that civil lawsuits must meet to proceed is still unclear, legal professionals said Friday during a discussion at the American Constitution Society's annual conference. One plaintiffs lawyer said the resulting plausibility requirement has forced her to reject some cases that she might have taken on prior to the high court's rulings in Twombly and Iqbal because "often the truth is implausible on its face."
June 21, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The impact of two landmark Supreme Court rulings that changed the standards civil lawsuits must meet to proceed is still unclear, a panel of lawyers said Friday during a discussion at the American Constitution Society‘s annual conference.
The panel, titled “Access to Federal Courts after Iqbal and Twombly,” was billed as a freewheeling “bull session” by moderator Arthur Miller, a law professor at NYU Law School.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
Health Law Associate CT Shipman is seeking an associate to join our national longstanding health law practice. Candidates must have t...
Shipman & Goodwin LLP is seeking two associates to expand our national commercial real estate lending practice. Candidates should have ...
Epstein Becker & Green is seeking an associate to joins its Commercial Litigation practice in our Columbus or Cincinnati offices. Ca...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
