Abstract
This Article challenges the prevailing rhetoric of notice pleading in the federal courts. By examining pleading practice in diverse substantive areas, a rich continuum of requirements emerges. There are narrowly-targeted forms of fact-pleading, broad-based particularity mirroring the fraud standard, and even "hyperpleading"—where virtually every element of a claim must be pleaded with particularity. From this micro-examination of pleading, the first contemporary pleading model develops: the pleading circle. Current practice is not a simple binary choice: fact-based pleading for fraud; notice pleading for everything else. Rather, there is a spectrum beginning with the universally rejected "conclusory allegation." Simplified notice pleading follows. The varieties of heightened pleading are next with their increasing particularity requirements. Ultimately, pleadings reach the point of prolixity. While potential explanations for the disconnect between notice pleading rhetoric and reality are presented, one overriding conclusion emerges-notice pleading as a universal standard is a myth.
How to Cite
45 Ariz. L. Rev. 987 (2003)
5
Views
2
Downloads