Case Citator › Perry v. Thomas

Perry v. Thomas

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
482 U.S. 483
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
51 of 51
Citing cases (total)
51
Treatment dates
1999
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Perry v. Thomas was limited in one later decision, but its arbitration rule remains binding. All 51 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The California Supreme Court declined to extend Perry’s federal preemption rule to consumer claims seeking an injunction for the public in Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans. After AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion reaffirmed broad federal preemption, the Ninth Circuit held in Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges that Broughton’s exception was preempted. The historical limitation is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

51 later cases cite Perry v. Thomas; 51 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Perry v. Thomas?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The California Supreme Court held that Perry did not require arbitration of California consumer claims seeking a public injunction.

    Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans · Supreme Court of California · filed

    In Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483 [107 S.Ct. 2520, 96 L.Ed.2d 426], the high court held California Labor Code section 229, which insulated claims regarding the collection of wages from agreements to arbitrate, was preempted by section 2 of the FAA. ... Nor do we believe that this interpretation of the CLRA contravenes the FAA. ... But although the court has stated generally that the capacity to withdraw statutory rights from the scope of arbitration agreements is the prerogative solely of Congress, not state courts or legislatures (Southland, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 18 [104 S.Ct. at p. 862]), it has never directly decided whether a legislature may restrict a private arbitration agreement when it inherently conflicts with a public statutory purpose that transcends private interests. In the present case, as discussed, we believe there is such an inherent conflict between arbitration and a statutory injunctive relief remedy designed for the protection of the general public.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Perry v. Thomas and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace