§ 3.13.2 Binding Effect.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.13.2 Binding Effect. Lower courts are bound by the supreme court’s decisions, and the supreme court alone is responsible for modifying that precedent. See Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323, 330, ¶ 31, 295 P.3d 421, 428 (2012). The supreme court there stated that the superior court failed to abide by that principle by anticipating that the supreme court would revisit and overrule its existing precedent in light of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Counsel does not err by making such an argument, but must be prepared to litigate it up to the Arizona Supreme Court to obtain relief. See also State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15, 86 P.3d 370, 374 (2004) (Arizona courts are bound by Arizona Supreme Court decisions and do not have authority to modify or disregard supreme court’s rulings).

As an intermediate appellate court, the court of appeals has no authority to overrule, modify or disregard supreme court decisions. See Van Heeswyk v. Jabiru Aircraft Pty., Ltd., 229 Ariz. 412, 418, ¶ 14, 276 P.3d 46, 52 (App. 2012); Hughes Custom Bldg., L.L.C. v. Davey, 221 Ariz. 527, 535, ¶ 25, 212 P.3d 865, 873 (App. 2009); Green v. Garriott, 221 Ariz. 404, 413, ¶ 36, 212 P.3d 96, 105 (App. 2009). For example, the court of appeals is precluded from examining whether the family purpose doctrine, which has existed in Arizona since 1919 under the common law, should be abrogated, since the court is bound by prior supreme court decisions. See Young v. Beck, 224 Ariz. 408, 414, ¶ 21, 231 P.3d 940, 946 (App. 2010). The court of appeals is not at liberty to disregard clear holdings of the supreme court, even when those holdings have been overlooked by subsequent appellate case law. See Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Sam’s Plumbing, LLC, 220 Ariz. 512, 516, ¶ 13, 207 P.3d 765, 769 (App. 2009).

The trial court is absolutely bound by the decision and mandate of an appellate court, and it is not within the trial court’s jurisdiction to review the appellate court’s determination. See Cal X-tra v. W.V.S.V. Holdings, L.L.C., 229 Ariz. 377, 395, ¶ 60, 276 P.3d 11, 29 (App. 2012). The trial court also generally is not free to deviate from the appellate court’s mandate giving specific directions. See Johnson v. Mofford, 193 Ariz. 540, 546, 975 P.2d 130, 136 (App. 1998). A trial court does not have authority to transgress upon the appellate court’s obvious intent by contravening on remand a decision and mandate previously issued. Thus, an appellate mandate, along with the decision it seeks to...