State v. Travarez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the 1963 enactments of the provisions of current Sections31-21-15(B
• stating that the Court 7 1 of Appeals must follow applicable Supreme Court precedent
• stating that the Court of Appeals must follow applicable Supreme Court precedent
• concluding in the context of criminal sentencing that “[a]lthough the case law presented by the [s]tate has never been expressly overruled, it is clear that it no longer has precedential value in light of the more recent legislative enactments”
• explaining 13 that the Court of Appeals must follow applicable precedents of the Supreme Court
• concluding in the context of criminal 4 1 sentencing that “[a]lthough the case law presented by the [s]tate has never been 2 expressly overruled, it is clear that it no longer has precedential value in light of the 3 more recent legislative enactments”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).