skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 119595 Find in a Library
Title: Use of Rule 12(b)(6) in Two Federal District Courts
Author(s): T E Willging
Corporate Author: Federal Judicial Ctr
United States of America
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 19
Sponsoring Agency: Federal Judicial Ctr
Washington, DC 20002
National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Data from civil cases terminated in two Federal district courts in 1975 and 1988 formed the basis of an analysis of changes in the use of Rule 12(b)(6), of whether motions under this rule fail to lead to the disposition of cases, and whether Rule 11 has had any demonstrable effect in cases involving Rule 12(b)(6).
Abstract: The research was prompted by a proposed rule change that would eliminate motions to dismiss that are made before a defendant files an answer to a complaint and that are based on the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The proposed revision also makes it clear that an opportunity for any necessary discovery should be provided before the court renders judgement on the pleadings or summary judgement. The analysis found that the amount of Rule 12(b)(6) activity has diminished between 1975 and 1988, based on a sample of 640 cases terminated in 1988 and a 1975 sample from the same two courts and four others. In addition, in the 1988 sample, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion led to final termination of the entire case in 3 percent of the sample. Such motions were filed in 13 percent of the sample and the motions were granted in 6 percent. Granting the motion led either to termination of the case as a whole or with respect to one or more defendants in 5 percent of the sample. Little evidence was found of Rule 11 activity in the cases in which Rule 12(b)(6) motions had been filed. No Rule 11 sanctions were imposed in any of the cases in the sample of 1988 terminations. Tables and footnotes.
Main Term(s): Civil proceedings
Index Term(s): Case dismissal; Court rules; Federal courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.