Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
21-1410•Sarah Blackburn v. Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company, d/b/a Erie Insurance Group
21-1410Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit22.03.2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1410
SARAH BLACKBURN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, d/b/a Erie
Insurance Group,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 21-1580
GREG M. MOORE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, d/b/a Erie
Insurance Group,
Defendant – Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
No. 21-1584
BRIAN MOORE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Alexandria Moore,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, d/b/a Erie
Insurance Group,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00980; 2:18-cv-
001136; 2:18-cv-01090)
Submitted: February 25, 2022 Decided: March 22, 2022
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn
and Judge Thacker joined.
ON BRIEF: Brent K. Kesner, Ernest G. Hentschel, II, KESNER & KESNER, PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Matthew J. Perry, J. Jarrod Jordan, Jill E.
Lansden, LAMP BARTRAM LEVY TRAUTWEIN PERRY & POWELL, PLLC,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases appeal the district court’s denial of their
motions to amend their complaints and the dismissal of their actions. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and the district court’s reasoning, and we detect no error. See J.A.
657-672. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the reasons given in the district court’s
opinion. See also Lydick v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 778 F. App’x 271 (4th Cir. 2019).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.