Cited by

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

83 citing documents.

Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Freedman v. Wolfswinkel 506 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
The Freedman group, while recognizing that there is no Arizona case law expressly in point on the joint venture situation, , and Arizona cases following the Busy Bee reasoning.
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
The leading case on indemnity in Arizona, and the case from which appellants derive their “primary-secondary”, “passive-active” theory, is Busy Bee Buffet
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
Thornton v. Marsico, 5 Ariz.App.
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy 484 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy 484 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
and § 93 of the Restatement of Restitution (1937), take the-position that they have stated a valid claim for indemnity.
Pinal County v. Adams 479 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Pinal County v. Adams 479 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Pinal County does not contend that it was not negligent, but rather, , contends that since its negligence was passive and Adams’ negligence was active it has a right of indemnification from Adams, the driver of the automobile.
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Vreeland v. STATE, BOARD OF REGENTS 449 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Vreeland v. STATE, BOARD OF REGENTS 449 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Berne v. Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc. 448 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1968
Berne v. Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc. 448 P.2d 388 Ariz. 1968
Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein 446 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein 446 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Busy Bee Buffet, , adopts the “active” versus “passive” negligence dichotomy upon which these indemnity cases are based.
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Miller 430 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
UNIVERSAL UNDER. INS. CO. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance 425 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Thornton v. Marsico 425 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Thornton v. Marsico 425 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
The first count of the third party complaint alleges that even if Thornton were negligent, , Fisher Contracting Co. would be liable to the third party plaintiffs.
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 422 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 422 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
the plaintiff was delivering kegs of beer to the defendant by way of a dimly lighted passageway in the defendant’s building.
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
City of Tucson v. Koerber 313 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1957
Eggerth v. Forselius 311 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1957
Eggerth v. Forselius 311 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1957
This is in harmony with the construction of our new rules of procedure that the “name of a pleading is of little consequence; its allegations will determine its character.” 1 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, section 283; Busy Bee Buffet v. Ferrell, Ariz., .