Skip to main content
Article
Comparative Convergences in Pleading Standards
158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 441 (2010)
  • Scott Dodson, William & Mary Law School
Abstract
Comparative civil procedure has had little influence in American jurisprudence and commentary, in part because of American procedure’s deep and widespread exceptionalism. But this may be changing, at least in certain areas. The American notice pleading standard, for example, which has long been considered exceptional, shows signs of trending toward the fact pleading models of foreign countries. Congressional experimentation with heightened pleading in statutes such as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly suggest that American pleading jurisprudence is moving away from its traditionally exceptionalist corner and towards a regime focused on facts that is more akin to the global norm. If so, then this trend they may allow for more meaningful transnational dialogue between the U.S. and foreign systems, more valuable comparative analyses in the U.S., and the potential to harmonize civil procedure across national boundaries.
Keywords
  • pleading standards,
  • fact pleading,
  • Rule 8,
  • plausibility pleading,
  • Twombly,
  • Bell Atlantic,
  • notice pleading
Disciplines
Publication Date
2010
Citation Information
Scott Dodson, Comparative Convergences in Pleading Standards, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009)