Task: Text Completion
Input (English): statutes. A similar argument was made and rejected in Columbia Park. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16370, at *9. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s statement in Wright v. Terrell is a clear indication that the rule announced in Wilson continues to be adhered to by our highest court. ¶12 The City also contends that had the Supreme Court disagreed with Harberd, it would not have denied the petition for review of that decision. A similar argument was also rejected in Columbia Park. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16370, at *3. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s denial of review has never been taken as an expression of the court’s implicit acceptance of an appellate court’s decision. State v. Rudolph, 141 Wn. App. 59, 67, 168 P.3d 430 (2007); accord In re Estate of Borghi, 141 Wn. App. 294, 301, 169 P.3d 847 (2007) (<HOLDING>). ¶13 We are not free to ignore controlling 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions (B) holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court (C) holding that it is not our prerogative to overrule or ignore clearly written decisions of our supreme court (D) recognizing that our supreme court does not overrule binding precedent sub silentio and noting that because an appellate court opinion did not mention a contradicting supreme court decision the conflict between the two decisions was not called to the attention of the court which denied review of the appellate decision (E) holding that even though petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the pennsylvania supreme court decision remained binding precedent as long as the decision had not been overturned by our supreme court
Output (English): (D)