TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal. App. 2d 69 (1964)

100 citing cases

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. Rollins v. State of California
    14 Cal. App. 3d 160 California Court of AppealJanuary 7, 1971

    (Herrero v. Atkinson, supra, 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 74 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ].)” In Thornton v.

  2. Embrey v. Borough of West Mifflin
    390 A.2d 765 Superior Court of PennsylvaniaJuly 12, 1978

    Rulings to this effect by the appellate courts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin are collected in an annotation in 8 A.L.R.3d 629 entitled “Right of Tortfeasor Initially Causing Injury to Recover Indemnity

  3. Parker v. Morton
    117 Cal. App. 3d 751 California Court of AppealApril 3, 1981

    Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal. App.2d 69, 75 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; see Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court, supra, 94 Cal. App.3d at p. 354; see also American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 591-598 [ 146 Cal.

  4. Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital
    876 P.2d 1062 California Supreme CourtJuly 28, 1994

    At the same time, courts often frankly admitted that the standard was vague and imprecise: "No one explanation appears to cover all cases." ( Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal. App.2d 69, 74 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry.

  5. Gertz v. Campbell
    302 N.E.2d 40 Illinois Supreme CourtSeptember 25, 1973

    . & Light Co. (1920), 173 Wis. 57 , 180 N.W. 269 ; Herrero v. Atkinson (1964), 227 Cal. App.2d 69 , 38 Cal. Rptr. 490 ; see also, Prosser, Joint Torts and Several Liability, 25 Cal. L. Rev. 413 (1937).

  6. Niles v. City of San Rafael
    42 Cal. App. 3d 230 California Court of AppealOctober 2, 1974

    The public entities were awarded judgment on the cross-complaint on the basis of the equitable indemnity doctrine propounded in Herrero v. *238 Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ].

  7. Blecker v. Wolbart
    167 Cal. App. 3d 1195 California Court of AppealMay 9, 1985

    (Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 733 ].)

  8. Standard Oil Co. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union
    23 Cal. App. 3d 585 California Court of AppealFebruary 17, 1972

    Proc., §§ 875, 876; Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 73 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.

  9. Munoz v. Davis
    141 Cal. App. 3d 420 California Court of AppealMarch 28, 1983

    The leading case is Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]. In the Herrero case, Alice Lorenzo was injured by an automobile driven by Herrero.

  10. Pearson Ford Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
    273 Cal. App. 2d 269 California Court of AppealMay 22, 1969

    Proc., §§875, 876; 1 Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 *272 Cal.App.2d 69, 73 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lan Franco, 267 Cal.App.2d 881, 884-885 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 660 ].)

  11. Transcon Lines v. Barnes
    498 P.2d 502 Court of Appeals of ArizonaJune 22, 1972

    In support of this position they cite a California case, Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 (1964), which allowed indemnity under similar circumstances.

  12. Davidson v. Welch
    270 Cal. App. 2d 220 California Court of AppealFebruary 27, 1969

    Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 78-79 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ].) 3 No opinion is expressed upon the liability of the employer to indemnify the employee for the expense of defending the tort action if the facts were resolved in favor of the

  13. Sanders v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
    65 Cal. App. 3d 630 California Court of AppealJanuary 5, 1977

    (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 117, 120-121 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 589 ]; Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 74 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; and Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co.

  14. Held v. Arant
    67 Cal. App. 3d 748 California Court of AppealMarch 3, 1977

    Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ] and Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 733 ], we conclude that the first lawyer has no right of indemnity from the second.

  15. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
    94 Cal. App. 3d 347 California Court of AppealJune 21, 1979

    App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal. App.3d 230 [ 116 Cal. Rptr. 733 ].)

  16. Kemper National P & C Companies v. Smith
    615 A.2d 372 Superior Court of PennsylvaniaOctober 20, 1992

    See Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d at 75 , 38 Cal.Rptr. at 493-494 ; Niles v. City of San Rafael, 42 Cal.App.3d at 240 , 116 Cal.Rptr. at 738 .

  17. Helling v. Lew
    28 Cal. App. 3d 434 California Court of AppealOctober 31, 1972

    Hash, 212 Cal.App.2d 1, 2-3 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 853 ]; Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 75 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ].)

  18. Goldfisher v. Superior Court
    133 Cal. App. 3d 12 California Court of AppealJune 23, 1982

    (Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69, 75 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; see Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher v. Superior Court, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 354; see also American Motorcycle Assn. v.

  19. Radford-Shelton & Associates Dental Laboratory, Inc. v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.
    569 P.2d 506 Court of Civil Appeals of OklahomaMarch 3, 1977

    See, e. g., Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 , noted in 34 U.Cin.L. Rev. 113 (1965). This right to indemnification is said to arise from the status of the parties as a matter of law.

  20. Reese ex rel. Reese v. AMF-Whitely
    420 F. Supp. 985 D. NebraskaOctober 20, 1976

    Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 (1964), the California court stated, Although the original negligence of Herrero may be regarded in law as a proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent malpractice of the cross-defendants

  21. Dunwoody v. Trapnell
    47 Cal. App. 3d 367 California Court of AppealApril 22, 1975

    Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ], is cited as permitting the survival of a personal injury action that had been commenced before plaintiff’s death.

  22. Great American Insurance Company v. Evans
    269 F. Supp. 151 N.D. CaliforniaJune 1, 1967

    Yandle, 171 Cal.App.2d 59 , 340 P.2d 52 (1959); Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 (1964). This Court believes that plaintiff is entitled to indemnification under either line of cases. I.

  23. General Electric v. STATE OF CAL., DEPT. PUB. WKS.
    32 Cal. App. 3d 918 California Court of AppealJune 4, 1973

    Cross-complainants place much reliance on Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal. App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ].

  24. General Electric Co. v. State ex rel. Department of Public Works
    32 Cal. App. 3d 918 California Court of AppealJune 4, 1973

    Cross-complainants place much reliance on Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ].

  25. American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court
    578 P.2d 899 California Supreme CourtFebruary 9, 1978

    Rptr. 701 ]; Herrero v. Atkinson (1964) 227 Cal. App.2d 69, 73-78 [ 38 Cal. Rptr. 490 , 8 A.L.R.3d 629 ]; Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co. (1962) 208 Cal. App.2d 367, 375-384 [ 25 Cal. Rptr. 301 ]; Alisal Sanitary Dist. v. Kennedy, supra, 180 Cal.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list