Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
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. It also heightened the pleading requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for plaintiffs to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. The latter change in the law has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, as evidenced by the dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens.
Wikipage disambiguates
Wikipage redirect
550 U.S. 544Ashcroft v. IqbalBell Atlantic Corp. v TwomblyCivil discovery under United States federal lawConley v. GibsonGregory G. GarreIn terroremKellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & FrederickO'Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc.Pleading (United States)Roberts CourtSherman Antitrust Act of 1890TwiqbalTwomblyUnited States antitrust lawWilkins MicawberZuffa
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
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. It also heightened the pleading requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for plaintiffs to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. The latter change in the law has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, as evidenced by the dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens.
has abstract
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ...... rom Justice John Paul Stevens.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
18,116,382
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,025,860,174
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
bot
InternetArchiveBot
@en
case
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
@en
date
October 2016
@en
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Stevens
@en
fix-attempted
yes
@en
fullname
Bell Atlantic Corporation, Bel ...... all others similarly situated
@en
googlescholar
Holding
Parallel conduct alone, absent ...... rely conceivable, on its face.
@en
JoinDissent
Ginsburg
@en
JoinMajority
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
@en
justia
LawsApplied
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 12
@en
Litigants
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
@en
majority
Souter
@en
OralArgument
other source
Supreme Court
@en
other url
Overturned previous case
Conley v. Gibson
@en
oyez
ParallelCitations
Prior
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ...... rom Justice John Paul Stevens.
@en
label
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
Bell Atlantic Corporation, Bel ...... all others similarly situated
@en