Case Citator › Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California

Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
645 F.2d 757
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
39 of 39
Citing cases (total)
39
Treatment dates
1990
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Overruled in part: the Supreme Court rejected the notice restriction underlying Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling held that district courts may facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs under the collective action procedure that the Fair Labor Standards Act supplies to age discrimination cases.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later described that change as abrogation on other grounds in McElmurry v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n. Partlow's separate equitable tolling ruling continues to be cited and applied. All 39 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment 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.

39 later cases cite Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California; 39 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 Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court held that courts may facilitate notice under the collective action procedure, displacing Partlow's premise that they generally lacked that authority.

    Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We hold that district courts have discretion, in appropriate cases, to implement 29 U. S. C. § 216(b) (1982 ed.), as incorporated by 29 U. S. C. § 626(b) (1982 ed.), in ADEA actions by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs. ... Compare Braunstein v. Eastern Photographic Laboratories, Inc., 600 F. 2d 335, 336 (CA2 1978) (per curiam) (under Fair Labor Standards Act, notice permitted because of remedial nature of FLSA and because notice would avoid a multiplicity of suits), cert. denied, 441 U. S. 944 (1979); Woods v. New York Life Ins. Co., 686 F. 2d 578, 580-581 (CA7 1982) (allowing court-approved notice); and United States v. Cook, 795 F. 2d 987, 993 (CA Fed. 1986), with McKenna v. Champion International Corp., 747 F. 2d 1211, 1213-1217 (CA8 1984) (disapproving court-authorized notice); Dolan v. Project Construction Corp., 725 F. 2d 1263, 1267-1269 (CA10 1984); Partlow v. Jewish Orphans’ Home of Southern Cal., Inc., 645 F. 2d 757, 758-759 (CA9 1981); and Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F. 2d 859, 864 (CA9 1977).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern California 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