Case Citator › Hishon v. King & Spalding

Hishon v. King & Spalding

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

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
467 U.S. 69
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
158 of 158
Citing cases (total)
5,291
Treatment dates
2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Hishon v. King & Spalding is abrogated as to the “no set of facts” pleading formula it repeated from Conley v. Gibson. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court retired that formula; Hall v. Bush later identified the change as an abrogation of Hishon's pleading language.
More on how this was screened

All 158 flagged citations have been read. Hishon's Title VII holding about partnership consideration remains intact. The confirmed pleading treatment is listed below.

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.

5,291 later cases cite Hishon v. King & Spalding; 158 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 Hishon v. King & Spalding?

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 retired the “no set of facts” pleading formula repeated in Hishon.

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

    We could go on, but there is no need to pile up further citations to show that Conley’s “no set of facts” language has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough. To be fair to the Conley Court, the passage should be understood in light of the opinion’s preceding summary of the com*563plaint’s concrete allegations, which the Court quite reasonably understood as amply stating a claim for relief. But the passage so often quoted fails to mention this understanding on the part of the Court, and after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hishon v. King & Spalding 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