Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

National Grange v. Chisman, 00-1334 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1334 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1334 NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, and WOW, INCORPORATED, t/a Insurance Center of Williamsburg; DEBORAH BRESNAHAM, Third Party Defendants - Appellees, versus RICHARD LYNWOOD CHISMAN, a/k/a Bay; JOYCE ANN CHISMAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-362-3) Submitted
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1334 NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, and WOW, INCORPORATED, t/a Insurance Center of Williamsburg; DEBORAH BRESNAHAM, Third Party Defendants - Appellees, versus RICHARD LYNWOOD CHISMAN, a/k/a Bay; JOYCE ANN CHISMAN, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-99-362-3) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth L. Roberts, ROBERTS & ROBERTS, P.C., Newport News, Virgin- ia, for Appellants. Robert Tayloe Ross, Michael L. Rigsby, MIDKIFF MUNCIE & ROSS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Douglas M. Palais, MCCANDLISH, KANE & GRANT, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard Lynwood Chisman and Joyce Ann Chisman appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees in this action in which National Grange Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that the insurance policy it issued to the Chismans was void. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, the supplemental joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chisman, No. CA-99-362-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer