|
Twiqbal is a colloquial term in American law (civil procedure), referring to two separate US Supreme Court cases that together made it more difficult to sue in federal court, by requiring that plaintiffs demonstrate that their claims are "plausible", rather than simply describing the case in sufficient detail to put the defendant on notice. The two cases are ''Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly'', 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and ''Ashcroft v. Iqbal'', 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and "Twiqbal" is a portmanteau of Twombly and Iqbal. Because the two cases together have wrought a significant change in American civil procedure, the cases together, and the principle for which the cases stand, have both become commonly referred to as ''Twiqbal''.〔See, e.g., Alison Frankel, ("Supreme Court Declines to Halt 2nd Circuit's Twiqbal Pushback" ), Reuters, Jan. 9, 2013; Edward Rice, ("Twiqbal Motions: Are They Worth It?" ), Law360, July 12, 2012; and Richard Horder, "Together, these cases are often affectionately called “Twiqbal” and have caused both the courts and plaintiffs a great deal of angst over the years since their pronouncement.", ACOEL: American College of Environmental Lawyers (May 15, 2013). Emphasis added.〕 The Supreme Court's 2009 ''Iqbal'' case elaborated the heightened standard of pleading it established two years previously in ''Twombly'', and established that it was generally applicable in all federal civil litigation and not limited to antitrust law:
The effect of these two decisions has been described as "incredibly consequential"〔See, e.g., Alison Frankel, ("Supreme Court Declines to Halt 2nd Circuit's Twiqbal Pushback" ), Reuters, Jan. 9, 2013.〕 and "controversial".〔("Congress Reversing 'Twiqbal'? Bill to Overturn 'Iqbal' and 'Twombly' Is One for Lawyers to Watch" ), Lawyers USA, Nov. 22, 2010.〕 After ''Iqbal'' was decided, expanding ''Twomblys reach beyond antitrust law, legislation was introduced to reverse the cases and re-introduce "notice pleading";〔See the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, (S.1504 (111th Congress) ), and the Open Access to Courts Act of 2009, (H.R. 4115 (111th Congress) ).〕 neither bill passed. == Further reading and references == * David Freeman Engstrom, ("The ''Twiqbal'' Puzzle and Empirical Study of Civil Procedure" ), 65 ''Stanford Law Review'' 1203 (June 2013). * William M. Janssen, ("The Odd State of Twiqbal Plausibility in Pleading Affirmative Defenses" ), 70 ''Washington and Lee Law Review'' 3 (June 2013). * A. Benjamin Spencer, ("Pleading and Access to Civil Justice: A Response to ''Twiqbal'' Apologists" ), 60 ''UCLA Law Review'' 1710 (2013). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Twiqbal」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|