Cited by

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

85 citing documents.

Followed State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
318 n. 4, ¶ 15, , 374 n. 4 (2004).
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Followed State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
318 n. 4, ¶ 15, , 374 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 this court’s rulings.”).
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-18, ¶¶ 5-15 , -74 (2004) (and cases cited therein).
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Followed Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
318 n. 4, ¶ 15, , 374 n. 4 (2004).
Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Followed Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
318 n. 4, ¶ 15, , 374 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. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Followed State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
318 n. 4, ¶ 15, , 374 n. 4 (2004).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, n.4, 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.”); (state courts bound by decisions of United States Supreme Court inter
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶9 As a preliminary matter, “[t]he 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.” n.4, n.4 (2004).
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
-18 ¶¶ 5-15, -74 (2004) (holding, based on long-standing case law, that defendant who did not testify at trial waived any challenge to a pretrial 22 ¶46 This court, however, recently ruled that, when a defendant seek
Stoudamire v. State of Arizona 141 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Stoudamire v. State of Arizona 141 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Followed State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
n.4, n.4 (2004) (“courts of this state are bound by the decisions of ” Arizona Supreme Court); see White, 160 Ariz. at 28, 770 P.2d at 332 (applying Nash); ¶¶ 37, 36, (court approved finding of prior conviction when “state introdu
Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
n.4, 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.
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
n.4, 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 th[at] court’s rulings.”); (“This court may not disregard a clear
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
496, 498, ¶ 7 , (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling allowing admissibility of prior felony convictions); see also State v. Montaño, ¶ 66 , (it is within the trial court’s discretion to sanitize prior convictions), supplemented on different grounds by , ¶ 15 , (a defendant must testify at trial to preserve a challenge to the trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes).
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood 98 P.3d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
n. 4 , , 374 n. 4 (2004).
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by