It’s a regular event for me to find myself somehow “compelled” to read something that I have no desire, energy or intent to read. Maybe I’m just obsessive-compulsive, but I think the Good LORD sometimes “forces” me to stick my snoot in a book or article until I suddenly discover something that (for me, at least) is an important and even exciting insight.
The following PDF file concerns an A.D. 1918 article from the Harvard Law Review that was written to advocate that the American judicial system (which started with “common law pleading” and later changed to “code pleading”) change again to “Notice Pleading”. The position advocated in this article was largely adopted and today “Notice Pleading” is the predominant form of pleading in the American courts.
I didn’t want to read the original article. Didn’t have energy to read it. Didn’t enjoy reading most of it. But I felt “compelled” to read it all, just the same–and sure enough, before I was done I found what was for me, a number of important and powerful insights. The effort was well worth my time and energy–and when the Good LORD “compels” me, it always is.
The entire text is about 10,000 words (about half is from the original author; half is my commentary and analysis). If you’ll take time to read it, I believe you’ll be at least intrigued and you may also even learn something important.
Click to download: 1918 NOTICE PLEADING Harvard_law_review EDITED
DIAR
June 27, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Hi Alfred
Thanks for the informative articles , I have no law background and in fact have just begun to study the topic, I have read some of your articles and found them to be very educational, I was reading a book the other night, Handbook of common law pleading and saw the references to notice pleading which I posted here, I almost felt compelled to post the references in fact, it is funny as you say how God somedays seems to move us with purpose. Anyway thanks for the commentary on the reference atricle.
God Bless
Diarmuid
Sapiens
September 28, 2009 at 7:53 PM
I think you may find this interesting:
Originally published July 24, 2009
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Congress+To+Weaken+Pleading+Requirements%3F-a0205577195
On July 22, 2009, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter introduced the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, S. 1504. The bill appears designed to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which require a plaintiff to plead enough factual detail in a complaint to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” If Senator Specter’s bill becomes law, “a Federal court shall not dismiss a complaint . . . except under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Conley v. Gibson.” Conley was much maligned, and it required a complaint to be upheld “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” In Twombly, the Supreme Court rejected Conley as unworkable, reasoning that the loose standard often subjected defendants to costly and burdensome discovery on the basis of little more than conclusory allegations. The Supreme Court reiterated Twombly’s holding in Iqbal, and it also clarified that the standard set forth in Twombly applies in all civil cases. Sutherland will continue to monitor the progress of the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009.