Preston v. Ferrer
552 U.S. ___ (2008)

Annotate this Case

552 U. S. ____ (2008)
552 U. S. ____ (2008)
552 U. S. ____ (2008)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 06-1463

ARNOLD M. PRESTON, PETITIONER v. ALEX E. FERRER

on writ of certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district

[February 20, 2008]

   Justice Thomas, dissenting.

   As I have stated on many previous occasions, I believe that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting); see also Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 449 (2006) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444, 460 (2003) (same); Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same). Thus, in state -court proceedings, the FAA cannot displace a state law that delays arbitration until administrative proceedings are completed. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.