Case ID: us_511/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Justice Stevens", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOCA GRANDE CLUB, INC. v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., INC.
    No. 93-180.
    Argued January 11, 1994
    Decided April 20, 1994
    Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
    
      David F. Pope argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jack C. Rinard.
    
    
      Ronald J. Mann argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Richard A. Olderman.
    
    
      Stuart C. Markman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were James E. Felman, C. Steven Yerrid, and Christopher S. Knopik.
      
    
    
      
      Briefs of amicus curiae urging reversal were filed for the Maritime Law Association of the United States by Warren B. Daly, Jr., and George W. Healy III; and for the National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys by William S. Lerach, Leonard B. Simon, and Kevin P. Roddy.
      
      
        Kathryn A Oberly, Carl D. Liggio, Jon N. Ekdahl, Harris J. Amhowitz, Howard J. Krongard, Edwin D. Scott, and Eldon Olson filed a brief for Arthur Andersen & Co. et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
    
   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari, 509 U. S. 953 (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, ante, p. 202, 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.