Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
- Decided
- May 21, 2007
- Docket
- 05-1126
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 146,720 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that plaintiffs must allege "enough facts" to "nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible" — NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co. (2007)
- holding that plaintiffs must allege “enough facts” to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible” — NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co. (2007)
- holding that “courts are not 14 bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation 15 marks omitted) — Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2010)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
Liability under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, requires a “contract, combination ... , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” The question in this putative class action is whether a § 1 complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges that major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to [*549] competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement, as distinct from identical, independent action. We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.