BOCA GRANDE CLUB, INC., Petitioner v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, INC.

511 U.S. 222114 S.Ct. 1472128 L.Ed.2d 165 (511 U.S. 222114 S.Ct. 1472128 L.Ed.2d 165, 511 U.S. 222114 S.Ct. 1472128 L.Ed.2d 165)

BOCA GRANDE CLUB, INC., Petitioner v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, INC.

No. 93-180.

Argued: Jan. 11, 1994.

Decided: April 20, 1994.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

David F. Pope, Tampa, FL, for petitioner.

Stuart C. Markman, Tampa, FL, for respondent.

Ronald J. Mann, Washington, DC, for U.S. as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court.

Syllabus *

Held: The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1461, --- L.Ed.2d ---- which adopts the proportionate share rule, under which actions for contribution against settling defendants are neither necessary nor permitted. P. 1472.

990 F.2d 606 (CA11 1993), vacated and remanded.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

TOP


Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari, 509 U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 39, 125 L.Ed.2d 788 (1993), to consider the question whether, in an action against several alleged joint tortfeasors under general maritime law, the plaintiff's settlement with one defendant bars a claim for contribution brought by nonsettling defendants against the settling defendant. Because the opinion that we announce today in McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1461, --- L.Ed.2d ---- adopts the proportionate share rule, under which actions for contribution against settling defendants are neither necessary nor permitted, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

It is so ordered.

CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org

*

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.