Legal Opinion

Baird v. Jones

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 1993No. G013030PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WALLIN, J.

In this case we are asked to consider whether the comparative equitable indemnity doctrine, set forth by our Supreme Court in American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 [146 Cal.Rptr. 182, 578 P.2d 899], permits an intentional tortfeasor to obtain indemnity from a concurrent intentional tortfeasor. We conclude that it does.

RE/MAX of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Inc., and its employee, Chuck I. Jones, appeal a judgment requiring them to indemnify Earle J. Baird. Baird, Jones and RE/MAX were held jointly and severally liable to Tarek Samee for…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
  2. American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Daly v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-KartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (In Re First Alliance Mortgage Co.)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
  2. Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  3. Heiner v. Kmart Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. City of Merced v. FieldsDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1998
  5. Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API