Bishop v. Pecanic
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GARBARINO, Judge.
¶ 1 We hold that a defendant who is jointly and severally liable for an intentional tort with a co-tortfeasor is entitled to have an adverse judgment reduced by the amount of any settlement reached with the settling eotortfeasor. Because the trial court interpreted Arizona’s version of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) to the contrary, we reverse in part.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. The appellees Mathew and Chad Bishop are brothers. Mathew attended high school at Scottsdale Christian Academy.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Jones v. VIP Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Janson v. ChristensenArizona Supreme Court · 1991
- Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & YoungArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- Drozda v. McComasCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
- Patricia L. Pratt, Cross-Appellant v. National Distillers & Chemical Corporation, CrossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- Jamerson v. QuinteroCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- Ida v. LeachCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2001