Only some. Federal courts apply the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal, but each state's highest court sets its own pleading standard. The states that follow Twombly and Iqbal by express high-court decision include Colorado, Massachusetts and South Dakota. Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia declined. Illinois and Pennsylvania require fact pleading under their own rules. For the other states we did not confirm a controlling high-court decision, so this table does not classify them.
What this table covers, and what it does not
The tables below give the motion to dismiss standard by state only where we could tie it to a controlling source. Every row rests on a source we read in full on October 1, 2026, linked in the row. We list a state only when its highest court (or, for Pennsylvania, its rules of civil procedure) speaks to the question. We do not claim a count of "adopting" states, and we do not guess at the rest. If your state is missing, we did not confirm a controlling decision. That does not mean the state has no standard.
We also did not trace every citing decision after each opinion. A later case, a rule amendment or a legislative change can move a state, so check any row against current authority before you cite it.
The federal baseline
Twombly held that a complaint needs "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," and retired the Conley v. Gibson "no set of facts" formulation, observing that "after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562-63, 570 (2007).
Two years later the Court made the point general: a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,'" and Twombly "expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 684 (2009).
That binds federal courts. Whether a state court applies a plausibility pleading standard is the state's call, because its civil rules are its own. Many state rules copy Federal Rule 8, which is why the question keeps coming up: does copying the text mean copying the 2007 reading of it?
States that follow Twombly and Iqbal
| State | Controlling decision | Year | What the court did |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588 | 2016 | Reversed a court of appeals that had applied the "no set of facts" test and held the complaint failed to state a plausible claim in light of Twombly and Iqbal. |
| Massachusetts | Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 | 2008 | "[W]e take the opportunity to adopt the refinement of that standard that was recently articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly." |
| South Dakota | Sisney v. Best, Inc., 2008 SD 70, 754 N.W.2d 804 | 2008 | Held that because the state rule also requires a "showing" of entitlement to relief, "we adopt the Supreme Court's new standards." |
| Wisconsin | Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86, 356 Wis. 2d 665 | 2014 | Described Twombly as clarifying "what notice pleading requires," called it "consistent with our precedent," and required facts that "plausibly suggest" a violation. See the note below. |
| District of Columbia | Potomac Development Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 | 2011 | "[W]e interpret Superior Court Rule 8(a) to include this plausibility standard." (D.C. is not a state, but its highest court's ruling is the same kind of authority.) |
One caution on Wisconsin. Colorado and Massachusetts reached plausibility by saying so. Wisconsin's court framed Twombly as a clarification of notice pleading that fit its own precedent, so read Data Key before describing Wisconsin as an adopter in a brief.
States whose high courts declined to follow Twombly
| State | Controlling decision | Year | What the court did |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 189 P.3d 344 | 2008 | Granted review "to dispel any confusion" and held that "Rule 8, as previously interpreted by this Court, governs the sufficiency of claims for relief." |
| Washington | McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wn.2d 96 | 2010 | Refused to read a plausibility requirement into CR 12(b)(6): "We decline." |
| Tennessee | Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 | 2011 | "[W]e decline to adopt the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility pleading standard." |
| Iowa | Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution, Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600 | 2012 | Asked to construe Iowa's rule as the Supreme Court construed Rule 8: "We decline to do so." |
| Minnesota | Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598 | 2014 | Granted review to decide "whether the plausibility standard announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ... and Ashcroft v. Iqbal ... applies to civil pleadings in Minnesota state court. We conclude that it does not." |
| Vermont | Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, 184 Vt. 1; Island Industrial, LLC v. Town of Grand Isle, 2021 VT 49 | 2008, 2021 | In 2021, citing Colby: "Notably, we have rejected the heightened pleading standards the United States Supreme Court has adopted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." |
| West Virginia | Roth v. DeFelicecare, Inc., 226 W. Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183; W. Va. Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. Estate of Grove, No. 18-1076 (W. Va. Nov. 20, 2020) | 2010, 2020 | Roth noted that "our interpretation of West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is more liberal than what is allowed under the federal rules." Asked in Grove to adopt the federal standard: "we repeatedly have declined to adopt this standard, and we again decline to do so." |
Read the Vermont and West Virginia rows with care, because the key statements in Colby, Roth and Grove are footnotes.
Vermont. In a Colby footnote, the majority answered a dissent arguing that Twombly had overruled the "no set of facts" language. Whether that was so was "arguable in light of conflicting interpretations of Twombly," but the court had relied on Conley for over twenty years, was "in no way bound by federal jurisprudence in interpreting our state pleading rules," and was "unpersuaded by the dissent's argument that we should now abandon" its minimal notice pleading standard. Island Industrial, 2021 VT 49, ¶ 24, now reads that footnote as a rejection of the federal standard.
West Virginia. Roth says only that state pleading is more liberal. Grove is an express refusal to adopt plausibility, and it cites earlier footnotes for the same point.
Iowa. The general rule still stands. In Nahas v. Polk County, No. 22-0239 (Iowa June 9, 2023), the court said it had "explicitly declined to replace our notice pleading system with the heightened pleading standards that federal courts use," citing Hawkeye Foodservice. But the legislature has imposed a heightened standard for claims against municipal corporations and their employees or officers: under Iowa Code § 670.4A(3), as Nahas describes it, the plaintiff must plead "a plausible violation" of the law and "must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the violation."
Delaware: conceivability kept, question left open
In Central Mortgage Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531 (Del. 2011), the court declined "to use this case as the vehicle" to decide whether Twombly and Iqbal affect Delaware's standard, because the parties had not "fully and fairly litigated the issue." It said that "until this Court decides otherwise or a change is duly effected through the Civil Rules process, the governing pleading standard in Delaware to survive a motion to dismiss is reasonable 'conceivability.'" The opinion notes that members of the Court of Chancery had been citing plausibility with approval, so a one-line label for Delaware oversimplifies.
Fact-pleading states are a separate category
A chart of notice pleading vs. plausibility pleading by state leaves out a third group. Do not file a fact-pleading state under "adopted." Stricter pleading in these states comes from their own rules, and it predates Twombly.
| State | Source | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) | "Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction." A plaintiff "must allege facts sufficient to bring a claim within a legally recognized cause of action." |
| Pennsylvania | Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) | "The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." |
A complaint can satisfy plausibility and still fail a fact-pleading rule, and the reverse is also possible. The standards measure different things. For what counts as a bare conclusion under either test, see our guide to conclusory allegations.
Texas: a different mechanism
Texas does not fit the table neatly. We did not find a Texas Supreme Court decision adopting or rejecting Twombly. What Texas has is Rule 91a, which authorizes dismissal of a cause of action that has no basis in law or fact. In City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016), the court applied the rule and quoted its text: dismissal is appropriate "if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought ... [or] no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded." The opinion calls that test "the rule's factual-plausibility standard" but does not cite Twombly or Iqbal. We treat Texas as unsettled on plausibility, with its own dismissal procedure on top. The mechanics are in our Rule 91a guide.
Everyone else: unsettled on our record
Ohio, Kentucky, Utah, New York and the rest are not in the tables above. For some, the answer is an intermediate appellate decision, a trial-court practice, or a high-court case that discusses Twombly without deciding anything. None of that is a controlling high-court holding, and none should be presented as one. A source that sorts all 50 states into two boxes makes calls the cases do not always support, and a list that counts fact-pleading states with the adopters is wrong.
If you need a state not listed, the method is in our guides to finding controlling authority and to running a 50-state survey. Start with the state's highest court, then its rules committee, then the intermediate appellate decisions.
Why this matters on removal
If you file in state court under a looser standard and the defendant removes, the pleading standard changes. Rule 81(c)(1) provides that the Federal Rules "apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court," and Iqbal applies the plausibility standard to "all civil actions." Under Rule 81(c)(2), "repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it," and a defendant who had not answered must respond within the longest of 21 days after receiving the pleading, 21 days after service of the summons, or 7 days after the notice of removal is filed.
So a complaint that would survive in Iowa or Arizona state court can face a plausibility challenge once the case is in federal court. If removal is a realistic prospect, draft to the federal standard from the start. The federal motion itself is covered in our motion to dismiss guide, and the opposition side in how to respond to a motion to dismiss.
Frequently asked questions
Do all states follow Twombly and Iqbal?
No. Each state high court decides its own pleading standard. Colorado, Massachusetts and South Dakota adopted plausibility pleading, while Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia declined to. Illinois and Pennsylvania require fact pleading under their own rules. For other states we did not confirm a controlling decision, so check your state's highest court before relying on any chart.
Is plausibility pleading the same as fact pleading?
No. Plausibility is a federal gloss on Rule 8's short and plain statement requirement. Fact pleading comes from a state's own code or rules and requires the complaint to state the material facts supporting each element. Illinois and Pennsylvania are fact-pleading states, and neither got there by adopting Twombly.
Which state courts have expressly rejected Twombly?
Among the decisions we confirmed: Arizona (Cullen, 2008), Washington (McCurry, 2010), Tennessee (Webb, 2011), Iowa (Hawkeye Foodservice, 2012) and Minnesota (Walsh, 2014). Vermont (Colby, 2008, as read in Island Industrial, 2021) and West Virginia (Grove, 2020, in a footnote) also declined. Delaware kept its conceivability test in 2011 while leaving the question open.
Does a federal court apply Twombly to a case removed from a state court?
Yes. Rule 81(c)(1) provides that the Federal Rules apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court, and Iqbal held that Twombly's standard governs all civil actions under Rule 8. A complaint drafted to a looser state standard can face a plausibility challenge once the case is in federal court.
Verify any table, including this one
A state-by-state chart is a snapshot. Courts revisit pleading standards, rules committees amend them, and a decision that reads as settled can have been narrowed since. Before you put a row in a brief, read the opinion, then check that it is still good law and see how your state's courts have treated it. Our note on binding versus persuasive authority explains why a sister state's reasoning, however thorough, does not bind a court in yours.
CaseRead's legal research searches public law for your state and your firm's own files together, and cites each answer to its source. The Hallucination Shield is free, needs no signup, and checks up to 50 citations per run, flagging any it cannot verify. Run the cases in your brief through it before you file, whoever compiled the list.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. For guidance on a specific case, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.