The Dartmouth Review, on Behalf of Its Officers, Staff and Subscribers v. Dartmouth College
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 46 flagged citations were read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.
46 later cases cite The Dartmouth Review, on Behalf of Its Officers, Staff and Subscribers v. Dartmouth College; 46 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 The Dartmouth Review, on Behalf of Its Officers, Staff and Subscribers v. Dartmouth College?
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
Overruled in part
-
The First Circuit overruled Dartmouth Review's heightened pleading requirement for civil-rights actions and held that ordinary notice pleading applies.
Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández · First Circuit · filed
Consequently, we traditionally have held plaintiffs alleging-civil rights violations to something more stringent than mere notice pleading. See, e.g., Boston & Me. *64Corp. v. Town of Hampton, 987 F.2d 855, 866 (1st Cir.1993) (“[A] heightened requirement of specificity is well established for ... allegations of civil rights violations.”); Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth Coll., 889 F.2d 13, 16-17 (1st Cir.1989) (“[T]he key question is whether plaintiffs assembled specific facts adequate to show or raise a plausible inference that they were subjected to race-based discrimination.” (emphasis supplied)). ... Because neither the Civil Rules nor any applicable statute authorizes the imposition of a heightened pleading standard for civil rights actions, we disclaim our earlier practice and overrule the decisions authorizing it. ... All civil rights actions are subject to Rule 8(a)’s notice pleading regime. To the extent that preexisting circuit precedent contradicts this holding, we regard that precedent as abrogated by recent Supreme Court case law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
A Maine district court declined to impose Dartmouth Review's heightened pleading rule on statutory civil-rights claims against a private college.
Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College · District of Maine · filed
Defendants rely on Dartmouth Review, a case involving §§ 1981 and 2000d claims in which the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit indicated that the mandate to “eschew reliance ... on unsupported conclusions,” ... The Court’s decision not to impose a heightened pleading standard on Plaintiff leaves it to evaluate Plaintiffs Amended Complaint under the generous pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads The Dartmouth Review, on Behalf of Its Officers, Staff and Subscribers v. Dartmouth College 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