Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Busy Bee Buffet, Inc. v. Ferrell, 310 P.2d 817.

83 citing documents.

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
Co., -98 (1957); Restatement § 96 (“[a] person who, without personal fault, has become subject to tort liability for the unauthorized and wrongful conduct of another, is entitled to indemnity from the other”) (emphasis added).
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. 138 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C. 138 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
139 Ariz. at 169 , 677 P.2d at 942 ( , and other cases).
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Although Busy Bee Buffet, , is cited for this proposition, subsequent interpretations of that case insist that “the one seeking indemnity not be personally at fault in any way____” Transcon, 17 Ariz.App.
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
See generally Busy Bee Buffet
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Dooley-Jones & Associates, Inc. 746 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Dooley-Jones & Associates, Inc. 746 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
AVAILABILITY OF INDEMNITY TO ACTIVE TORTFEASOR Dooley-Jones contends that indemnity is not available to an active tortfeasor, relying on the common law doctrine set forth in Busy Bee Buffet v. Ferrell, 82 * P.2d 817 (1957).
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; Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App.
La Raia v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 722 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1986
La Raia v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 722 P.2d 286 Ariz. 1986
See also Busy Bee Buffet, , (mislabeled pleading will be considered as if properly labeled).
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance 722 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance 722 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Indemnity by operation of law may arise when liability is imposed on a joint tortfeasor due only to his “passive” or “secondary” negligence
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
APS urges the affirmative, arguing that its admitted negligence was “passive”, while Shea’s was “active”
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
Estes Co. v. Aztec Construction, Inc., 139 * , Sequoia Mfg.
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
North Star Development Corp. v. Wolfswinkel 706 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Rule 8(g), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
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
Certainly these facts would not permit Jenkins to claim indemnity from USF&G under any theory recognized by the legion of Arizona appellate decisions commencing with the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in Busy Bee Buffet, , and continuing to the present.
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
City of Phoenix v. Kenly, 21 Ariz.App.
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
Petitioner filed a , and its progeny since the jury’s verdict in the wrongful death action constituted a determination that McKee had an active role in the conduct causing the woman’s death.
Bishop v. Marks 570 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Bishop v. Marks 570 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
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
ll that the defendant (third-party plaintiff) need allege is a substantive basis indicating that the third-party defendant “is or may be liable to him *487 [the original defendant] for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.” As has been demonstrated in prior Arizona decisions, that substantive basis may take the form of certain common law indemnity theories, , express contractual indemnity provision, Southern Pacific Co. v. Gila River Ranch, Inc., supra, or it may be based on other co
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
Mountain States has characterized Its relationship to the liability creating event visa-vis Corbin-Dykes in the classic terms of “active and passive negligence”
Henderson Realty v. Mesa Paving Co. 554 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Henderson Realty v. Mesa Paving Co. 554 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
P.2d 817 (1957), *301 upon which Henderson principally relies, to be inconsistent with our conclusion that indemnity does not apply in this case.
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” , Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App.
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
Negligence consisting of a failure to act is not synonymous with “passive”
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
The complaint against Sundt, according to Allison’s petition, alleged that Sundt “negligently and careless *81 ly operated, maintained and controlled the construction site, failed to observe safety standards and rules.” , the leading case on non-contractual indemnity in this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that a landowner who breaches his duty to an invitee to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition, solely through the negligence of a co-tenant, was entitled to indemnity from
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
In upholding the ruling of the trial court the Appellate Court stated: “At most, the City and Project were joint tort feasors, between whom there is no contribution, and between whom there would at most have been a matter of common' liability.” , decision to justify the active-passive negligence theory in the claim against Kenly.
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
imposes liability upon Allison for indemnity based upon the “passive negligence” of Dorr-Oliver and the “active negligence” of Allison Steel.