DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA Et Al.

Supreme Court

DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA Et Al.

409 U.S. 238, 93 S. Ct. 566, 34 L. Ed. 2d 444, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 3

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 11, 1972

Docket72-5411

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 409 U.S. 238 (DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA Et Al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA Et Al., 409 U.S. 238, 93 S. Ct. 566, 34 L. Ed. 2d 444, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 3 (1972).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 U.S. 238, 93 S. Ct. 566, 34 L. Ed. 2d 444, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillard-v-industrial-commission-of-virginia-et-al-scotus-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack