6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Grayson v. AT & T CORP.green2 sentences2011See Grayson, supra, 15 A.3d at 229 n. 16 (noting that we have not yet decided whether to follow the plausibility standard); Duk Hea Oh v. Nat. 2011See Grayson, supra, 15 A.3d at 229 n. 16 (noting that we have not yet decided whether to follow the plausibility standard); Duk Hea Oh v. Nat. | 2 | 2 |
Ashcroft v. Iqbalgreen2 sentences2025See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007))). 2011Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 . 4 Pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-946, we interpret Superior Court Rule 8(a) to include this plausibility standard. | 1 | 3 |
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblygreen2 sentences2025See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007))). 2011Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. at 1949 (citations omitted to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). | 1 | 2 |
Solers, Inc. v. Doegreen2 sentences2011Capital Revitalization Corp., 7 A.3d 997 , 1005 n. 10 (D.C.2010) (noting that we have “not definitively decided whether to adopt” the plausibility standard, “much less whether to apply the standard to affirmative defenses”); Solers, supra, 977 A.2d at 948 (analyzing the complaint under Super. 2011Capital Revitalization Corp., 7 A.3d 997 , 1005 n. 10 (D.C.2010) (noting that we have “not definitively decided whether to adopt” the plausibility standard, “much less whether to apply the standard to affirmative defenses”); Solers, supra, 977 A.2d at 948 (analyzing the complaint under Super. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Goldstein v. Patakigreen1 sentence2010But cf. Goldstein v. Pataki, 488 F.Supp.2d 254, 289 (E.D.N.Y.2007) (reasoning that "because Justice Kennedy, the fifth vote in the Kelo majority, would require a plaintiff challenging a taking to assert ‘a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties,’ Kelo at 491, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ..., the plausibility standard recognized in Twombly arguably applied to eminent-domain cases even before Twombly was decided”). 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Kelo v. City of New Londongreen1 sentence2010But cf. Goldstein v. Pataki, 488 F.Supp.2d 254, 289 (E.D.N.Y.2007) (reasoning that "because Justice Kennedy, the fifth vote in the Kelo majority, would require a plaintiff challenging a taking to assert ‘a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties,’ Kelo at 491, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ..., the plausibility standard recognized in Twombly arguably applied to eminent-domain cases even before Twombly was decided”). 11 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Potomac Development Corp. v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences2015Corp., 28 A.3d at 544 (quoting Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 ); see also Bell Atl. 2013Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 , 544 & n. 4 (D.C.2011) (adopting the plausibility standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal (citing Mazza v. Housecraft, LLC, 18 A.3d 786 (D.C.), vacated as moot, 22 A.3d 820 (D.C.2011) (per curiam))). | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Mazza v. House Craft, LLC
neutral
2 sentences2013Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 , 544 & n. 4 (D.C.2011) (adopting the plausibility standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal (citing Mazza v. Housecraft, LLC, 18 A.3d 786 (D.C.), vacated as moot, 22 A.3d 820 (D.C.2011) (per curiam))). 2011Mazza v. Housecraft, LLC, 18 A.3d 786 (D.C.), vacated as moot, 22 A.3d 820 (D.C.2011) (per curiam). | 2 | 2011–2013 |
Mazza v. HOUSECRAFT LLC
green
2 sentences2013Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 , 544 & n. 4 (D.C.2011) (adopting the plausibility standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal (citing Mazza v. Housecraft, LLC, 18 A.3d 786 (D.C.), vacated as moot, 22 A.3d 820 (D.C.2011) (per curiam))). 2011Mazza v. Housecraft, LLC, 18 A.3d 786 (D.C.), vacated as moot, 22 A.3d 820 (D.C.2011) (per curiam). | 2 | 2011–2013 |
Duk Hea Oh v. National Capital Revitalization Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Capital Revitalization Corp., 7 A.3d 997 , 1005 n. 10 (D.C.2010) (noting that we have “not definitively decided whether to adopt” the plausibility standard, “much less whether to apply the standard to affirmative defenses”); Solers, supra, 977 A.2d at 948 (analyzing the complaint under Super. 2011See Grayson, 15 A.3d at 229 n. 16; Oh v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., 7 A.3d 997 , 1005 n. 10 (D.C.2010); Solars, Inc. v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941 , 948 n. 5 (D.C.2009). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.