The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
04-1033•Patricia S. Chafin v. State Farm Fire
04-1033Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 2, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1033
PATRICIA S. CHAFIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
a foreign insurance company,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CA-03-153-2)
Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Hobbs, LAW OFFICE OF MARK HOBBS, Chapmanville, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Jeffery S. Burgess, Charles S. Piccirillo, SHAFFER
& SHAFFER, P.L.L.C., Madison, West Virginia, Kelly R. Charnock,
SHAFFER & SHAFFER, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Patricia S. Chafin appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Chafin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. CA-03-153-2 (S.D.W.
Va. Nov. 20, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.