Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Thomas, Administratrix, et al. v. District of Columbia, 1969 — 393 U.S. 1088 · caselaw · US
General
Thomas, Administratrix, et al. v. District of Columbia
393 U.S. 1088·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 920.
Thomas, Administratrix, et al. v. District of Columbia.
Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., for Thomas, and Philip J. Lesser and I. Irwin Bolotin for Wynn, petitioners.
Charles T. Duncan, Hubert B. Pair, Richard W. Barton, and John R. Hess for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.