City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 1
| Decision Date | 06 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 494 P.2d 383,16 Ariz.App. 483 |
| Parties | CITY OF GLENDALE, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Glen BRADSHAW, by and through Corena Bradshaw, Guardian of the Person and of the Estate of Glen Bradshaw, an Incompetent, and Corena Bradshaw, his wife, Appellees and Cross-Appellants. 1503. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Jack M. Anderson and John S. Schaper, Phoenix, for appellant and cross-appellee, City of Glendale.
Divelbiss & Gage by G. David Gage, Phoenix, for appellees and cross-appellants.
J. LaMar Shelley, Mesa, Snell & Wilmer by Mark Wilmer, Phoenix, for amicus curiae, League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
We filed our opinion in this matter on 1 February 1972. See 16 Ariz.App. 348, 493 P.2d 515. Thereafter the appellees filed a timely motion for rehearing in relation to the issue of the compensability of loss of consortium. The appellant also filed a timely motion for rehearing which was directed to all the issues including that portion of our opinion following the subheading 'the Fandrey-Bradshaw covenant.' Issue was joined on the appellant's motion for rehearing.
In the interim period the Arizona Supreme Court filed its opinion on the review of City of Tucson v. Gallagher, 14 Ariz.App. 385, 483 P.2d 798 (1971). See City of Tucson v. Gallagher, 108 Ariz. 140, 493 P.2d 1197 (17 February 1972).
City of Tucson case, while not on all fours with the facts in the case this Court is now considering, has many similar features. The opinions in City of Tucson case do not set forth the full terms settlement agreement, as we did, the Supreme Court pointing out that only the substance of the agreement was contained in the record on appeal. The essence of the two agreements appears to be very similar and the Supreme Court upheld the agreement.
We quote from the Supreme Court's opinion.
We find in the case now under consideration that there is an absence of showing of unethical conduct as well as an absence of collusion or perjury.
On rereading our opinion we believe that some may consider that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sequoia Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Halec Const. Co., Inc.
...Hemet Dodge v. Gryder, supra; City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 16 Ariz.App. 348, 493 P.2d 515 (1972), supplemented on rehearing, 16 Ariz.App. 483, 494 P.2d 383 (1972), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 108 Ariz. 582, 503 P.2d 803 Just as the discussion in Mustang, supra, makes it clear the a......
-
Taylor v. DiRico
...Cf. Mustang Equipment, supra; City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 16 Ariz.App. 348, 493 P.2d 515, Supplemented on rehearing, 16 Ariz.App. 483, 494 P.2d 383, Aff'd. in part, rev'd. in part, 108 Ariz. 582, 503 P.2d 803 Gallagher agreements have been held invalid in several jurisdictions. E. g., Cox......
-
Hemet Dodge v. Gryder
...108 Ariz. 140, 493 P.2d 1197 (1972), and City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 16 Ariz.App. 348, 493 P.2d 515 (1972), supplemented in 16 Ariz.App. 483, 494 P.2d 383 (1972) and on review, 108 Ariz. 582, 503 P.2d 803 (1972). We uphold the agreement in this case as it is within the scope of those whic......
-
Mustang Equipment, Inc. v. Welch
...523, 534 P.2d 454 (1975); City of Glendale v. Bradshaw, 16 Ariz.App. 348, 493 P.2d 515 (1972), Supplemented on rehearing, 16 Ariz.App. 483, 494 P.2d 383 (1972), Aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 108 Ariz. 582, 503 P.2d 803 (1972); Cf. Ulan v. Richtars, 8 Ariz.App. 351, 446 P.2d 255 (1968). As s......