Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 498 P.2d 502.

42 citing documents.

Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano 375 P.3d 69 Ariz. 2016
Courtney Cramer v. Hon. Starr/ munguia/bejarano 375 P.3d 69 Ariz. 2016
a]lthough § 457 can apply to successive acts of medical malpractice,” no evidence showed that doctor’s consultation advice 8 CRAMER V. STARR (MUNGUIA/BEJARANO) Opinion of the Court proximately caused infant’s death, and therefore “§ 457 did not apply to impute liability” to the doctor); n.1, 434, n.1, 508 (1972) (noting in dicta, without deciding, that § 457 supported original tortfeasors’ liability for enhanced damages (claimant’s later death)).
Hatch Development, LLC v. Solomon 377 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hatch Development, LLC v. Solomon 377 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Shea, 150 Ariz. at 274; Valley Forge, 150 Ariz. at 252; see also Busy Bee, 82 Ariz. at 197-98 (holding that the indemnity plaintiff’s liability was due only because of its legal duty as the property owner and not because of any active or independent negligence); (describing the evolution of common law indemnity in Arizona, and holding that 10 HATCH v. SOLOMON Opinion of the Court indemnity plaintiff was more than just technically liable and therefore not entitled to i
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Barrett v. Harris 86 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
430 n. 1, , 504 n. 1 (App.1972), which the Barretts cite, only mentions § 457 when relating the original tortfeasors’ argument concerning their right to indemnhy from a treating physician.
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
“[I]ndemnity is an all or nothing proposition damage-wise, and *118 hence should be an all or nothing proposition fault-wise.”
Superior Companies v. Kaiser Cement Corp. 733 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Superior Companies v. Kaiser Cement Corp. 733 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-99, Estes Co., 139 Ariz. at 169 , 677 P.2d at 942; -31 , -04 (1972).
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
See Blakely Oil, , Transamerica Insurance Company v. Trico International, Inc., , , Thornton v. Marsico, 5 Ariz.App.
Transamerica Insurance v. Trico International, Inc. 716 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Transamerica Insurance v. Trico International, Inc. 716 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Co., , , Restatement of Restitution §§ 93, 96 (1937).
Estes Co. v. Aztec Const., Inc. 677 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Estes Co. v. Aztec Const., Inc. 677 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Spanier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 623 P.2d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Thornton v. Marisco, 5 Ariz.App.
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 212 Ariz. 1979
King & Johnson Rental Equipment Co. v. Superior Court 599 P.2d 212 Ariz. 1979
In other words, indemnity is allowed only where “the whole of the fault was in the one against whom indemnity is sought.”
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
Allison Steel Manufacturing Company v. Superior Court, supra
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
Ewing v. Goettl's Metal Products Co. 569 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Ewing v. Goettl's Metal Products Co. 569 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
185 , , a third-party action would not lie in the absence of an explicit contractual indemnity provision.
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
185 , , Employers’ Mutual Liability Ins.
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
The Court of Appeals then held that the facts do not support liability by Allison on the basis of the “active negligence-passive negligence”
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
185 , , ; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wis.
Desert Steel Co. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF MARICOPA 526 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Desert Steel Co. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF MARICOPA 526 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Subsequently, , and Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, supra, and the petitioner renewed both motions for summary judgment based on those opinions.
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co. 526 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co. 526 P.2d 406 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
we noted that the rule is a "harsh doctrine".
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
185 , , Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wis.
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 511 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 511 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy, supra; See, , for an analysis and discussion of the Arizona cases dealing with this subject.