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.

  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., , (“[WJe are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.”).
  • Thompson v. Thompson 176 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Followed Thompson v. Thompson 176 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Although we are bound by decisions of our supreme court, City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., , this booklet does not constitute such a decision and, therefore, we are not bound by it.
  • Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors Inc., , (stating court of appeals is bound by decisions of the supreme court and may not “overrule, modify or disregard them”).
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER And QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    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. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    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 ...
  • Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., P.2d 958 (App. 1993) (court of appeals bound by controlling decisions of supreme court).
  • State v. Sullivan 69 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sullivan 69 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    To the contrary, we are constrained by the decisions of our supreme court and are not permitted “to overrule, modify, or disregard them.”
  • State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc.
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    McKay v. Industrial Comm’n, , City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • Ruelas v. Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc. 18 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Followed Ruelas v. Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc. 18 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    See City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., , (court of appeals bound by supreme court precedent and cannot “overrule, modify, or disregard” it).
  • State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    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.”); , ("[t]his court may not disregard a clear holding of our supreme court on the purported gr
  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Barerra 998 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    “ “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. Thompson 981 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Thompson 981 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ” , (quoting *299 City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., , ).
  • Myers v. Reeb 947 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Myers v. Reeb 947 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    “[W]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them---- Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court.” City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc.