context: The orders are void because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action. Because the orders are void, appellants argue, appellants should be restored to the position they would have been in had the orders never been entered.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 683 F.2d 832, 834
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that a garnishee is entitled to restitution of payment made on a void judgment
citation_a.sentence: Watts, 752 F.2d at 410 (finding that defendant was entitled to restitution under Rule 60(b)(4) because the judgment against him was void); see also Vander Zee v. Karabatsos, 683 F.2d 832, 834 (4th Cir.1982) (explaining that a garnishee is entitled to restitution of payment made on a void judgment).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 752 F.2d 410, 410
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that defendant was entitled to restitution under Rule 60(b)(4) because the judgment against him was void
citation_b.sentence: Watts, 752 F.2d at 410 (finding that defendant was entitled to restitution under Rule 60(b)(4) because the judgment against him was void); see also Vander Zee v. Karabatsos, 683 F.2d 832, 834 (4th Cir.1982) (explaining that a garnishee is entitled to restitution of payment made on a void judgment).