Case Citator › Conley v. Gibson

Conley v. Gibson

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
355 U.S. 41
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
1,947 of 1,947
Citing cases (total)
30,360
Treatment dates
1994–2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Conley v. Gibson is abrogated in part: all 1,947 flagged citations have been read, with the 3 confirmed federal-law treatments listed below. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly abrogated Conley's “no set of facts” formulation.
More on how this was screened

Williams v. Alabama State University and Malone v. Chambers County Board of Commissioners applied heightened pleading to individual-official Section 1983 claims despite Conley's ordinary notice-pleading rule. The three state and District of Columbia courts listed separately replaced Conley-based pleading standards for their own procedural law. The other reviewed opinions positively applied Conley, reported Twombly's act, described Conley's own treatment of older law, or placed nearby adverse language on unrelated authorities, rulings, and arguments.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30,360 later cases cite Conley v. Gibson; 1,947 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Conley v. Gibson?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Conley's “no set of facts” formulation, rejecting its literal reading as an incomplete gloss.

    Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The court confined Conley's ordinary notice-pleading standard by requiring heightened factual specificity for Section 1983 claims against individual officials.

    Williams v. Alabama State University · M.D. Alabama · filed

    See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). This is the "notice pleading” standard utilized in federal courts. Id. ... Thus, because Williams does not bring suit against a municipality, the court finds the application of the heightened pleading standard appropriate in this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court confined Conley's Rule 8 standard to municipal Section 1983 claims and required greater factual specificity for claims against individual officials.

    Malone v. Chambers County Board of Commissioners · M.D. Alabama · filed

    See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). This is the “notice pleading” standard utilized in federal courts. Id. ... However, to the extent that some of Malone’s claims are not brought against a municipality, the court finds the application of the heightened pleading standard appropriate.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Conley v. Gibson and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace