Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Twombley v. City of Long Beach et al., 1964 — 379 U.S. 904 · caselaw · US
General
Twombley v. City of Long Beach et al.
379 U.S. 904·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 517.
Twombley v. City of Long Beach et al.
John B. Ogden for petitioner. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Jay L. Shavelson, Assistant Attorney-General, and N. Gregory Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of California et al., respondents. Solicitor General Cox, Roger P. Marquis and George S. Swarth filed a memorandum for the United States in opposition to request for consolidation.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.