Comments on: Twombly: Good, Bad, or Who Cares? http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2007/05/24/twombly-good-bad-or-who-cares/ Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:09:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Antitrust Review http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2007/05/24/twombly-good-bad-or-who-cares/comment-page-1/#comment-105788 Antitrust Review Wed, 30 May 2007 14:46:40 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2007/05/24/twombly-good-bad-or-who-cares/#comment-105788 <strong>Antitrust News & Notes...</strong> As has been widely reported, the FTC is examining Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick. The ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law has seminar on the new e-discovery rules and antitrust on June 27. Yesterday, U.S. District Court ... Antitrust News & Notes…

As has been widely reported, the FTC is examining Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick.

The ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law has seminar on the new e-discovery rules and antitrust on June 27.

Yesterday, U.S. District Court …

]]> By: Thom http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2007/05/24/twombly-good-bad-or-who-cares/comment-page-1/#comment-104885 Thom Fri, 25 May 2007 18:12:05 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2007/05/24/twombly-good-bad-or-who-cares/#comment-104885 Welcome back, Josh. I, too, have been buried with grading. Am just about finished. Based on my experience as a litigator, I believe Twombly's effect will be significant OUTSIDE the antitrust context. Conley's nasty little "no set of facts" language mucked up many a motion to dismiss (or, more accurately, many a reply brief to a motion to dismiss -- the plaintiff would always quote Conley in the response brief). I'm thrilled that a majority of the Court has agreed that Conley's "no set of facts" language has, in Justice Souter's words, "earned its retirement." Welcome back, Josh. I, too, have been buried with grading. Am just about finished.

Based on my experience as a litigator, I believe Twombly’s effect will be significant OUTSIDE the antitrust context. Conley’s nasty little “no set of facts” language mucked up many a motion to dismiss (or, more accurately, many a reply brief to a motion to dismiss — the plaintiff would always quote Conley in the response brief). I’m thrilled that a majority of the Court has agreed that Conley’s “no set of facts” language has, in Justice Souter’s words, “earned its retirement.”

]]>