Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Myers v. Reeb, 947 P.2d 915.

50 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Followed 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
(“[W]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them .
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(alteration in original).
State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Roque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court.”) (quoting City of Phx.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carlson, -89, ¶¶ 7-16 (2015), and this Court has no authority to overrule our supreme court
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, our supreme court still recognizes the applicability of the doctrine, ¶¶33-36 , and we have no authority to overrule its direction, , 41 n. 1, ¶ 9, , 783 n. 1 (App.2000) ( , ).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.1, ¶ 9, n.1 (App. 2000) ( ).
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., ).
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(recognizing court of appeals cannot ignore, overrule, or modify supreme court’s decisions).
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Followed Arizona Commercial Diving Services, Inc. v. Applied Diving Services, Inc. 129 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(‘Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that court”).
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
However, , this court feels compelled to grant jury trials in DUI eases until instructed not to do so by an appellate court.
Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Crowley 41 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Crowley 41 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(court of appeals lacks authority to disregard or overrule supreme court decisions); see also Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., , (court of appeals must follow our supreme court absent conflicting United States Supreme Court decision on same
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Followed State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cecil 36 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 32 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 32 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The court’s conclusion is, of course, binding on this court, , absent a subsequent *144 decision by the United States Supreme Court governing the same subject.
State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Ibanez 31 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See, , (court of appeals has no authority to disregard or overrule decisions of supreme court).
State v. Foster 13 P.3d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Foster 13 P.3d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Saiers 992 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Followed Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(“The magistrate’s failure to follow Rothweiler was a misfeasance for which special action relief was appropriate.”).
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
Followed State v. Thompson 981 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
” , (quoting *299 City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., , ).
In Re Timothy C. 978 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re Timothy C. 978 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
We therefore review both the findings of fact and the ultimate finding of voluntariness for clear and manifest error, for ”[w]e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court....”
State v. Flournoy 971 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Flournoy 971 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998