涟漪效应:伊克巴尔案后司法申辩标准的意外变化

The Cleveland State Law Review Pub Date : 2012-01-21 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1989432

von der Heydt, E. James

{"title":"涟漪效应:伊克巴尔案后司法申辩标准的意外变化","authors":"von der Heydt, E. James","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1989432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2007 and 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court altered the requirements for adequate statement of a legal claim in the filing of lawsuits. Unwittingly, it also changed the way lower courts evaluated their own grounds for jurisdiction. The error propagates rapidly and will be difficult to eradicate without further guidance from the Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":258683,"journal":{"name":"The Cleveland State Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ripple Effects: The Unintended Change to Jurisdictional Pleading Standards after Iqbal\",\"authors\":\"von der Heydt, E. James\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1989432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2007 and 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court altered the requirements for adequate statement of a legal claim in the filing of lawsuits. Unwittingly, it also changed the way lower courts evaluated their own grounds for jurisdiction. The error propagates rapidly and will be difficult to eradicate without further guidance from the Supreme Court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":258683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cleveland State Law Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cleveland State Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1989432\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cleveland State Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1989432","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

2007年和2009年，美国最高法院修改了在诉讼文件中充分陈述法律主张的要求。不知不觉中，它也改变了下级法院评估自己管辖权的方式。这种错误传播迅速，如果没有最高法院的进一步指导，将很难根除。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Ripple Effects: The Unintended Change to Jurisdictional Pleading Standards after Iqbal

In 2007 and 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court altered the requirements for adequate statement of a legal claim in the filing of lawsuits. Unwittingly, it also changed the way lower courts evaluated their own grounds for jurisdiction. The error propagates rapidly and will be difficult to eradicate without further guidance from the Supreme Court.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

The Cleveland State Law Review

自引率

0.00%

发文量