DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA, 409 U.S. 238 (1972)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA, 409 U.S. 238 (1972)

409 U.S. 238

DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA
No. 72-5411.

Decided December 11, 1972

347 F. Supp. 71, vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought a class action to challenge the constitutionality of a state regulation that permitted temporary suspension of his workmen's compensation payments without a prior hearing. He appealed an adverse judgment, but his jurisdictional statement states that after the decision below "an Order was entered by the Commission approving a lump-sum settlement of $4,243.20 in full settlement of [his] individual claim for compensation for his injury which occurred on March 15, 1971."

In this state of the record, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to consider whether this case is moot.

Page 409 U.S. 238, 239




U.S. Supreme Court

DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA, 409 U.S. 238 (1972)

409 U.S. 238

DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA
No. 72-5411.

Decided December 11, 1972

347 F. Supp. 71, vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought a class action to challenge the constitutionality of a state regulation that permitted temporary suspension of his workmen's compensation payments without a prior hearing. He appealed an adverse judgment, but his jurisdictional statement states that after the decision below "an Order was entered by the Commission approving a lump-sum settlement of $4,243.20 in full settlement of [his] individual claim for compensation for his injury which occurred on March 15, 1971."

In this state of the record, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to consider whether this case is moot.

Page 409 U.S. 238, 239

Disclaimer: 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.