Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinal County v. Adams, 479 P.2d 718.

28 citing documents.

Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP 919 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-74 , -21 (1971) (Busy Bee does not mean that a less negligent joint tortfeasor can be indemnified by one whose negligence was greater; rather, “when the indemnitee, solely through the negligence of the indemnitor, breaches his duty to ...
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 723 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1986
Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 723 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1986
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Dow Chemical Finance Corp. v. Marana Associates 623 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Dow Chemical Finance Corp. v. Marana Associates 623 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Radcliffe v. Hilton Inn 580 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Radcliffe v. Hilton Inn 580 P.2d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Corbin-Dykes Electric Co. 559 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1976
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Corbin-Dykes Electric Co. 559 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1976
In our opinion, , correctly analyzed the holding in Busy Bee : “The court in Busy Bee made it clear that it did not mean that a joint tort-feasor whose negligence is lesser can have indemnity from the other for damages caused by the concurring negligent act of both.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Scottsdale 537 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Scottsdale 537 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
189 , , City of Phoenix v. Kenly, 21 Ariz.App.
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 523 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 523 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Busy Bee and Crouse only permit indemnity when the party seeking indemnity was not personally at fault and did not actively participate in the wrong causing injury to a third party, but was nevertheless liable because of a legal duty to the third party for the conduct of the indemnitor who actively caused the injury.” (Citations omitted) , citing Sherk, Common Law Indemnity Among Joint Tortfeasors, 7 Ariz.L.Rev.
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Kenly 519 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
536 , , City of Phoenix v. Whiting, supra; Thornton v. Marsico, supra.
Empire MacHinery Corp. v. Industrial Cab Co. 504 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Empire MacHinery Corp. v. Industrial Cab Co. 504 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
we set forth the following example as a situation where indemnification is allowed: “F. the indemnitee, a retailer or user of a chattel which is dangerously defective for its intended use because of the fault of the supplier and/or manufacturer-indemnitor, becomes liable to another; ..."
Transcon Lines v. Barnes 498 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Transcon Lines v. Barnes 498 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
represents, on its facts the closest thing to the application of a “but for” test to indemnity cases which we have to date.
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Advance Transformer Co. 485 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Advance Transformer Co. 485 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
and cases cited therein.