Search for: "Napier v. Napier" Results 1 - 20 of 67
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2009, 1:55 am
Napier and another v Pressdram Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 443; [2009] WLR (D) 172 “Where a complainant made a complaint against his solicitor to the Law Society the complainant owed no duty of confidentiality to the solicitor or his firm not to reveal to others the result of the adjudication where the subject matter underlying the [...] [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 2:12 am
Napier and Another v Pressdram Ltd Court of Appeal “A barrister who made a complaint against his solicitor to his professional body owed no duty of confidentiality to the solicitor or his firm not to reveal to others the result of the adjudication against the solicitor where the subject matter underlying the adjudication was nothing private to [...] [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 5:43 am
04/14/09 DesMoinesRegister.com:Douglas Napier, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, has written an opinion article, in which he faults the Iowa Supreme Court for holding, in Varnum v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 4:11 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Berghoff Trading Ltd & Ors v Swinbrook Developments Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 413 (19 May 2009) Napier & Anor v Pressdram Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 443 (19 May 2009) High Court (Administrative Court) Eagles & Anor v Minister for the Environment Sustainability and Housing, Welsh Assembly Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1028 [...] [read post]
25 Sep 2022, 4:18 pm by Jon Sands
US v Napier, 463 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir 2006) does not require it. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 3:25 am by Ben
 Seven Network Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1411,  [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 6:18 am by Shon Hopwood
” The key disagreement between the parties is whether the Court’s 1926 decision in Napier v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 10:07 am by Shon Hopwood
The district court agreed, and the Third Circuit affirmed, invoking the Supreme Court’s holding in Napier v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 2:03 pm by Kali Borkoski
The Court held that petitioners’ state-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims fall within the field of locomotive equipment regulation pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, as that field was defined in Napier v. [read post]