Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint is the first pleading in American law filed by a plaintiff which initiates a lawsuit. [1] A complaint sets forth the relevant allegations of fact that give rise to one or more legal causes of action along with a prayer for relief and sometimes a statement of damages claimed (an ad quod damnum clause).
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Our decision in Twombly illustrates the two-pronged approach.
federal question jurisdiction, the "well-pleaded complaint rule" North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago: 211 U.S. 306 (1908) Moyer v. Peabody: 212 U.S. 78 (1909) citizens' rights during insurrection Welch v. Swasey: 214 U.S. 91 (1909) Massachusetts' statute restricting building heights is constitutional Maryland v. West Virginia ...
Ashcroft v. 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.
The United States Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2) states that "[a] party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient."
Often cited discussion of the Himmel rule are by Richard W. Burke in 3 Geo.J.Legal Ethics 643 (1989-1990) and by Bruce Green in 39 William & Mary Law Review pp. 357–392 (vol. 39, issue 2), although the case has been cited over 300 times, as well as at least mentioned in over 200 law reviews. [6]
Some troops leave the battlefield injured. Others return from war with mental wounds. Yet many of the 2 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from a condition the Defense Department refuses to acknowledge: Moral injury.
A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a nolo contendere plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions.