The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.

Pleadings

in a court proceeding, an independent part of a trial in which the participants in the proceeding summarize the court-conducted investigations of the circumstances of the case and set forth proposals on how the case should be decided. In a Soviet criminal proceeding, pleadings include speeches by the prosecutors, the civil plaintiff, the civil defendant, representatives of the civil plaintiff and defendant, and the defense attorney. If no defense attorney is present at the court session, a public defender or the prisoner at the bar can plead. In addition, in cases of private accusation, the victim or his representative may speak. According to the law of certain Union republics (for example, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Ukrainian SSR, art. 318), the victim takes part in the pleadings in all cases where no state or public prosecutor is involved. The length of the pleadings is unrestricted, but the presiding judge has the right to stop speakers if they discuss circumstances irrelevant to the case. After the speeches, the participants in pleadings may rebut; each is entitled to one rebuttal, with the right to the last rebuttal belonging to the defense attorney or, in his absence, the prisoner at the bar.

In a civil proceeding, the plaintiff, defendant, their representatives, and third parties speak. The procurator takes part in the pleadings in a civil case only if he himself initiated the case; in other situations he presents a conclusion after the pleadings.

Mentioned in

References in periodicals archive

Unlike the courts that narrowly apply Twombly to the complaint, the plausibility courts hold that Twombly changed the "fair notice" requirement applicable to all pleadings. These plausibility courts fail to recognize the basic principle that a legal term can take on different meanings in different--although closely related--contexts.

Second, and even more importantly, the plausibility courts fail to consider that the Court can prescribe one set of "fair notice" requirements for pleadings under Rule 8(a) while prescribing a separate set of "fair notice" requirements for pleadings under Rule 8(c).

In order to reinforce their tenuous claim that Twombly heightened the "fair notice" requirement for all Rule 8 pleadings, the plausibility courts often assert that Form 30 directs litigants to provide plausible factual detail when stating affirmative defenses, (114) but the declining courts have overwhelmingly repudiated this argument for reasons apparent on the face of the Form.

An implausible standard for affirmative defenses

In this paper we will argue that pleadings have failed, and will continue to fail, to facilitate early issue definition in civil proceedings.

Having thus set the historical stage and having compared and contrasted the two systems, we then recommend ways to realign the functions of pleadings and case management to eliminate redundancy and allow each to do what it can do best.

Australia and the US have inherited their civil procedure systems from England, and in both countries the current pleadings rules have evolved from that common source.

Defining civil disputes: lessons from two jurisdictions

Upon a motion for summary judgment, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and the summary judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, 1) neither Rule 1.130(b), 1.510(c), nor 1.510(e) contain a requirement that exhibits attached to a pleading must be authenticated; 2) summary judgment Rule 1.510(c) requires consideration of the pleadings on summary judgment motions; and 3) Rule 1.130(b) requires that exhibits attached to a pleading be considered for all purposes, without excepting summary judgment motions.

The Seemingly "Magical Aura" of Exhibits When Attached to a Pleading Under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

(26.) See Subrin, supra note 19, at 916 (detailing the basic procedures of common-law pleading); see also DODSON, supra note 22, at 7-8 (discussing the "back-and-forth colloquy" of common-law pleadings).

Some of the cases retrieved were cases involving Rule 12(c) motions for judgments on the pleadings. These cases were included in the results because Rule 12(c) motions are decided under the same legal standard as Rule 12(b)(6) motions.

Pre-Twombly precedent: have Leatherman and Swierkiewicz earned retirement too?

consequences of pleadings surviving motions to dismiss--may function to

competently because pleadings generally lack detail: "We cannot

The burdens of pleading