Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)–(3)¶
P., F. R. C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)–(3).
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Kettle logic
- This also distinguishes kettle logic from legitimate alternative pleading, in which defenses are offered as conditional on which facts obtain ("if A, then my position is X; if not-A, then Y") — conditional alternatives are mutually exclusive but each is held on a hypothesis, not asserted jointly
This sourceFed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2), authorizing alternative and hypothetical pleading of a claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)-(3): (d)(2) permits alternative/hypothetical pleading; (d)(3) separately permits inconsistent claims or defenses regardless of consistency, without requiring conditional framing.
SupportedVerified against the source
- This also distinguishes kettle logic from legitimate alternative pleading, in which defenses are offered as conditional on which facts obtain ("if A, then my position is X; if not-A, then Y") — conditional alternatives are mutually exclusive but each is held on a hypothesis, not asserted jointly
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:e048b72cd3ff · see in the full table