Cited by

Although Arizona courts give weight to federal interpretations of analogous procedural rules, ¶ 19 (2020), federal authority cannot override controlling Arizona Supreme Court precedent, ¶ 31 (2013); Weatherford ex rel.

¶ 31 (2013) (emphasizing that lower courts are bound by supreme court precedent).

4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, ¶ 5 (2022) ( ¶ 16 (2013)).

When construing provisions of the Arizona Security Act with substantially similar provisions in the federal Securities and Exchange Act, we “follow[] settled federal securities law unless there is a good reason to depart from that authority.” ¶ 18 (2013); see also 1996 Ariz. Sess.

¶ 31 (2013) (“The lower courts are bound by our decisions, and this [Supreme] Court alone is responsible for modifying that precedent.”); Hobson v. Mid-Century Ins.

Sess.); ¶ 16 (2013) (“Our goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.” (quoting Est. of Braden ex rel.

See 4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, ¶ 5 (2022) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ( ¶ 16 (2013))).

¶ 31 (2013) (recognizing the Arizona Supreme Court alone is responsible for modifying its precedent).

¶ 31 (2013) (emphasis added) (parallel citations omitted).

forth here the item, section, or part, of any measure on which the referendum is used.’” Jones reasons, “While the zoning measure was approved amid other matters considered by the Graham County Board of Supervisors, the zoning measure was certified as its own standalone measure.” ¶20 “Our goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.” (quoting Est. of Braden ex rel.

But “[w]e are mindful of the importance of stare decisis,” ¶ 30 (2013), and “do not lightly overrule precedent and do so only for compelling reasons,” (quoting Wiley v. Indus.

“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ¶ 16 (2013) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

¶ 16 (2013) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ( ¶ 6 (2003))); see also Stapert v. Arizona Bd.

¶ 31 (2013) (“Trial courts are required to follow the decisions of a higher court .

¶22 “Our goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.” ¶ 16 (2013) (quoting Estate of Braden ex rel.

¶ 31 (2013) (The lower courts are bound by Arizona Supreme Court decisions, and that court “alone is responsible for modifying that precedent.”).

“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ¶ 16 (2013) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

Sess.); (statement of intent) ¶ 18 (2013).

contain no three-part test,” but “plain constitutional terms.” In our analysis, we are bound by our supreme court’s decisions, and “th[at] Court alone is responsible for modifying that precedent.” ¶ 31 (2013).

Comm’n of Ariz., ¶ 7 (2015), unless the meaning results in “an absurdity or constitutional violation,” ¶ 16 (2013).

¶ 8 (2013) (quoting 1951 Ariz. Sess.

¶ 31 , (“The lower courts are bound by our decisions, and this Court alone is responsible for modifying that precedent.”).