Abstract
With its decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2007 and 2009, the Supreme Court ushered in a new era of federal pleading standards. The old system of notice pleading was replaced by what has become known as plausibility pleading. In order to avoid dismissal, plaintiffs must now craft their complaints so that all nonconclusory allegations, taken as true, give rise to a claim that is plausible on its face. Immediately after the Court’s decision in Twombly, a heated debate arose in the legal community over many aspects of the new pleading standard. Did it apply to all civil actions? What exactly was required for a claim to be plausible? Would the new standard have a disparate impact on various types of litigation?
This article seeks to analyze how the plausibility standard should be applied to complex toxic tort claims. In doing so, it provides a background on the evolution of pleading standards, the controversies surrounding the new standard, the approaches lower courts have taken in applying the standard, and recent guidance from the Supreme Court dictating how the standard should be correctly applied.
Recommended Citation
Zachry Sandifer,
Insurmountable Burdens and Slippery Slopes: A Solution for Pleading Toxic Torts in the Plausibility Era,
43
S. Ill. U. L.J.
435
(2019).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol43/iss2/6