U.S. v. Thornton, 554 F.3d 443 (2009)
Feb 03, 2009OUTCOME: sentence reversed
issue: For purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Statute, was a prior conviction for "carnal knowledge" a "violent crime"?
Fay Frances Spence's Legal Cases (5)
Roanoke, VA
Litigation Lawyer at Roanoke, VA
Practice Areas: Litigation, Criminal Defense
Bosley v. Shepherd, 554 S.E.2d 77 (2001)
Nov 02, 2001OUTCOME: Plaintiff's verdict reversed and remanded
Plaintiff's expert testified, over defense objection, that the building contractor had violated the duty "to keep the workplace free of recognized hazards" because the accident happenned, in violation ... of principle that negligence cannot be presumed from the mere happening of an accident. Ms. Spence represented the defendant at trial and on appeal.
Sandow-Pajewski v. Busch Entertainment Corp., 55 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D. Va. 1999)
Jul 13, 1999OUTCOME: Summary judgment granted for defendants
plaintiff sued defendant park owner and defendant wheelchair vendor for injuries allegedly caused by a park patron's negligent operation of her wheelchair. Representing the wheelchair vendor, Ms. Spen ... ce argued that there was no proof that the vendor owned the wheelchair or negligently instructed the operator.
Little Creek Investment Corp. v. Hubbard
Mar 03, 1995OUTCOME:
Defendant sought indemnity from 3rd-party defendant. Jury found in favor of 3rd party defendant and defendant appealled, seeking judgment against 3rd-party defendant as a matter of law. Ms. Spence re ... presented 3rd-party defendant on appeal, and the Court denied defendant's claim for indemnity as a matter of law.
Lane v. Kingsport Armature & Electric, 676 F. Supp. 108 (W.D. Va. 1988)
Jan 04, 1988OUTCOME: Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied; case settled favorably for plaintiff
Defendant corporation owned the subsidiary corporation that plaintiff worked for and maintained that the workers compensation act provided the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff, repre ... sented by Ms. Spence, argued that the parent company was not the actual employer and that the subsidiary did not perform work that was part of the normal trade, business, or occupation of the parent company, and was therefore liable for its negligence.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
