Line of Duty Compensation 6 awarded 1920s Norton v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 112 1928-12-05 (No. 1316-Claimant awarded $2,259.50.) /opinions/v06-p0135-1/ ROBERT A. NORTON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought compensation for personal injury sustained in line of duty while a member of the Illinois National Guard. The court awarded $2,259.50 based on the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Claim type: Line Of Duty Death
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion
text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- MILITARY SERVICE-when award will be made for personal injury received
OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-
MILITARY SERVICE-when award will be made for personal injury received in line of duty while a member of the Illinois National Guard-Workmen's Compensation Act. Where claimant receives injuries in line of duty while a member of Illinois National Guard, an award will be made and the amount computed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
EMIL J. BENSON AND JOHN M. PFEFFERS, for claimant.
OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE LEECH delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a claim filed for the purpose of recovering compensation for the personal injury sustained in line of duty while a member of Battery B, 124th Field Artillery, Illinois National Guard.
In the statement filed by the Attorney General, it is admitted that the claimant in his statement, brief and argument properly states the facts and circumstances surrounding the cause of injury and that the amount of the award should be based on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the court, that the claimant be awarded the sum of Two Thousand, Two Hundred Fiftynine Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2,259.50).
Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)
·
All opinions in this volume
·
Also on CourtListener
This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The
PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent
opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or
closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See
About & sources.