Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Ever since their adoption in 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have required plaintiffs to plead claims rather than facts corresponding to the elements of a legal theory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Old code-pleading and fact-pleading systems were abandoned. See Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zürich), 953 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1992). Because complaints need not identify the applicable law, see Johnson v. Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346, 190 L. Ed. 2d 309 (2014); Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 179 L. Ed. 2d 233 (2011), it is manifestly inappropriate for a district court to demand that complaints contain all legal elements (or factors) plus facts corresponding to each.

It is enough to plead a plausible claim, after which 'a plaintiff 'receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint''. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). A full description of the facts that will prove the plaintiff's claim comes later, at the summary-judgment stage or in the pretrial order. So both the Supreme Court and ...

Register or login to access full content