Cited by

–33 ¶¶ 8–9 (2003) (“[S]tate courts are not bound by decisions of federal circuit courts .

¶¶ 8-9 (2003); Skydive Ariz., (“[D]ecisions of the Ninth Circuit, although persuasive, are not binding on Arizona courts.”).

¶ 8 (2003) (acknowledging that a Supreme Court decision on a substantive federal issue binds the state courts on that issue).

¶ 9 (2003); see also In re Bartoni-Corsi Produce, Inc., 130 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that federal courts interpreting state law issues are “bound by decisions of the state’s highest court,” and “[i]n the absence of such a decision, a federal court must predict how the highest state court would d

¶ 9 (2003), several courts reject Siegel or distinguish it in the no asset context.

¶ 6 (2003) (when defendant offers immunity defense, plaintiff "bears the initial burden of proving a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right").

533 ¶ 9, (providing that “state courts are not bound by decisions of federal circuit courts” and that “we may choose to follow substantive decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”) (emphasis added).

¶ 9 , (state courts are not bound by decisions of federal circuit courts).

disregard them.”); , (“[S]tate courts are not bound by decisions of federal circuit courts.”); , (decisions of other state courts are “useful” but “do not control Arizona law”).

¶¶ 8-9, -24 (2003) (state courts should follow federal circuit court on federal questions where reasonably possible).

532 n. 2, ¶ 7, , 323 n. 2 (2003).

285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (in a custodial situation where time for deliberation is available, a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoner creates a cognizable claim under § 1983); ¶¶ 26, 28 , (applying deliberate indifference standard in foster care context).

See Weatherford v. State, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 9