Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Crystal Ridge Development, Inc.

The majority has fallen victim to its own ill-conceived precedent regarding claims for contribution and, in its attempt to skirt this precedent, has put the petitioner to the impossible task of predicting that this Court would later hold its attempt to adhere to the letter of the law against it. Hiding behind a swarm of federal and state res judicata case-law, the majority fails to address the petitioner’s primary argument in this matter: that it was prohibited by our caselaw from bringing its contribution claim in the federal court action. As the petitioner correctly *563brings to the majority’s…