Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 11/18/1957

Conley v. Gibson

Citations

  • 355 U.S. 41
  • 78 S. Ct. 99
  • 2 L. Ed. 2d 80
  • 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1598
  • 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089
  • 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 9656
  • 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 439

About this case

Conley v. Gibson

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that provided a basis for a broad reading of the "short and plain statement" requirement for pleading under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .[1]

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Conley v. Gibson **

Contents

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conley_v._Gibson&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

The case arose from an alleged wrongful discharge of African-American employees from a railroad company and unequal protection from the union. The court ruled that general allegations of discrimination were sufficient to fulfill the Rule 8 requirement of a "short and plain statement" because liberal discovery guidelines allowed the complaint to gain much more specificity before trial. The kind of pleading allowed by Conley was known as "notice pleading."[2]

Conley presumes that the plaintiff's allegations are true, the facts are construed as most favorable to the plaintiff, and the case cannot be dismissed unless it is proven that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts.

Subsequent developments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conley_v._Gibson&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Subsequent developments")

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court overruled Conley, creating a new, stricter standard of a pleading's required specificity. Under the standard the Court set forth in Conley, a complaint need only state facts which make it "conceivable" that it could prove its legal claims—that is, that a court could only dismiss a claim if it appeared, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff would be able to prove "no set of facts" in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. In _Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly _, the court adopted a more strict, "plausibility" standard, requiring in this case "enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement." The Twombly reading was upheld in _Ashcroft v. Iqbal _ in 2009.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conley_v._Gibson&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conley_v._Gibson&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ Yeazell, S.C. Civil Procedure, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2008, p. 358
  2. ↑ Yeazell, p. 358

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conley_v._Gibson&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conley_v._Gibson&oldid=1351961768 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • emphasizing that the civil rules \do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim\
  • noting that plaintiffs must provide “fair notice of what [their] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”
  • stating that complaint must give “fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”
  • complaints are to be construed liberally under the notice pleading theory of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  • abrogated in other respects by Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)
  • Rule 8(a) requires a statement “that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Black

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.