Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co.

United States Supreme Court
448 U.S. 261 (1980)


Facts

Thomas (plaintiff), a District of Columbia (District) resident, was employed by Washington Gas Light Co. (defendant) for work primarily in the District but also in Virginia and Maryland. In 1971, Thomas was injured while working in Virginia. He sought benefits under the Virginia Workmen’s Compensation Act (Virginia Act) and was awarded them by the Virginia Industrial Commission (Virginia Commission). In 1974, Thomas sought benefits for the same injury under the District’s workmen’s compensation law (District Act). The employer challenged his claim on the grounds that the Virginia Act precluded any other recovery and that the District owed full faith and credit to the Virginia decision. An administrative law judge held that the Virginia award was res judicata in the District to the extent that it would be res judicata in Virginia but that the Virginia Act did not preclude an award of additional benefits outside of Virginia. Thomas was then awarded benefits under the District Act, minus the amount he had received under the Virginia Act. The Benefits Review Board upheld the award. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. Thomas petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (White, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 200,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.