Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smyers, 86 P.3d 370.

85 citing documents.

Followed State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 15 n.4 (2004) (explaining that “[t]he courts of this state are bound by” the supreme court’s decisions and have no “authority to modify or disregard” precedent).
State v. Armendaris 567 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Armendaris 567 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 15 n.4 (2004); see also Soliz, 223 Ariz. at 118 ¶¶ 6–7 (recognizing the holding in Williams).
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Kerl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Kerl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are binding with regard to the interpretation of the federal constitution.”); ¶ 15 n.4 (2004) (“The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of this court and do not have the authority to modify or disregard this court’s rulings.”).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 15 n. 4 (2004); see also McKay v. Indus.
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 9 (2004) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984).
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 15, n.4 (2004) (“The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of [the Arizona Supreme Court] and do not have the authority to modify or disregard [its] rulings.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2019) (request to adopt Washington’s 18
State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15, n.4 (2004) (“The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of [our supreme] court and do not have the authority to modify or disregard [its] rulings.”).
State v. Morphis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Followed State v. Morphis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Krenklis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Followed State v. Krenklis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Our state supreme court has found the child molestation statutes constitutional, ¶ 38 (2016), and we are bound by the decisions of our supreme court, ¶ 15, n.4 (2004).
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Followed State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 26 ; see also State v. Smyers , , n.4, , 374, n. 4 (2004).
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Followed State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See id; n.4 , , 374 n.4 (2004).
State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Followed State v. Woody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Followed State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Distinguished State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
4 n. 4 , , 374 n. 4 (2004); , (this court bound by opinions of our highest state court).
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.4, n.4 (2004) (lower courts are bound by decisions of Arizona Supreme Court and may not modify or disregard them).
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az 323 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az 323 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.4, ¶ 15, n.4 (2004) (“The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of [the Arizona Supreme Court] and do not have the authority to modify or disregard [that] court’s rulings.”).
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Arizona’s courts are bound by the decisions of our supreme court and we have no “authority to modify or disregard [its] rulings.” n.4, 9 STATE v. COONEY Opinion of the Court n.4 (2004).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 312 P.3d 109 Ariz. 2013
See, ¶ 15, Allie, 147 Ariz. at 327, 710 P.2d at 437.
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company 295 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2013
¶ 15 n.4, n.4 (2004); see also McKay v. Indus.
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Anthony Duran 293 P.3d 537 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶11 Our supreme court “has consistently applied the Allie rule but also has extended its reasoning to the use, for impeachment purposes, of involuntary statements and statements made in violation of Miranda.”3
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by