DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc., 868 P.2d 958.

86 citing documents.

  • JUDICIAL WATCH INC v. KRISTEN MAYES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (“[W]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.”).
  • In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to M.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to M.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    Id.; City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (“[W]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    ¶62 “We are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.” (quoting City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., ).
  • Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court.” (quoting City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., )).
  • State v. Wagner 510 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Wagner 510 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶19 We begin with the general principle that both we and the superior court are bound by the decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and “are not permitted ‘to overrule, modify, or disregard them.’” ¶ 15 (App. 2003) (); STATE v. WAGNER Opinion of the Court 613 (App. 1984) (“Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that cou
  • Goodard v. Goodard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Goodard v. Goodard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (when a party files a notice of appeal before superior court has an opportunity to rule on motion for reconsideration, court is divested of jurisdiction).
  • State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (“Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court.”)
  • Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (a statement from a court expressly declaring a guide for future conduct is considered authoritative and must be followed); City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors Inc., (court of appeals is bound by decisions of the supreme court and may not “overrule, modify, or disregard them”).
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Hefner v. Hefner 456 P.3d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    4 City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors Inc., (court of appeals is bound by decisions of the supreme court and may not “overrule, modify, or disregard them”); Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 2007) (same).
  • State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (noting this court has “no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard” supreme court decisions).
  • Leo H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Followed Leo H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (recognizing the court of appeals is bound by decisions of the supreme court and may not “overrule, modify or disregard them”).
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc., -81 (App. 1993).
  • State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., ).
  • Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Handrahan v. Burr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 15, (quoting City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., ); We assume without deciding that ADOC should have followed the superior court’s order not to place Vasquez in Florence.
  • Debra Arrett and Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower 345 P.3d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Debra Arrett and Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower 345 P.3d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (court of appeals has no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard our supreme court).
  • State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court.” (quoting City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., ).
  • Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (providing that when a party files a notice of appeal before the trial court had a chance to rule on the motion for reconsideration, the court is divested of jurisdiction); Southwest Gas, 229 Ariz. at 201 ¶ 8, 273 P.3d at 653.
  • johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶ 15, (“[W]e are constrained by the decisions of our supreme court and are not permitted ‘to overrule, modify, or disregard them.’”) ( ).
  • Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    288 ¶ 15, (“[W]e are constrained by the decisions of our supreme court and are not permitted ‘to overrule, modify, or disregard them.’”) ( , ).
  • Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    To the extent this statement supports upholding the rule forbidding awards of attorney fees to all pro se litigants, this court “is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and ha[s] no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.” City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., (“Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court.”).
  • Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd. 276 P.3d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Followed City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • Wilshire Insurance v. S.A. 227 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Wilshire Insurance v. S.A. 227 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., , (“[W]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.”).
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. King 218 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “LW]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.” City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009