"laches embraces not only the element of time, but the added ingredient of prejudicial harm.” 34 Tex. JuR.3d Equity § 46 at 363-64 (1984). This much is evident from the majority’s statement in the same paragraph, that "the State was prejudiced by applicant's fourteen year delay....” Majority opinion at 488, n. 3. 2 . The Legislature has increasingly exercised regulation of procedural rules governing the filing of a writs of habeas corpus: [T]he Legislature since about 1967 has "reworked and expanded procedural Tequi-sites” ... So, it has not been uncommon for the Legislature to "enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual.” Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)(McCormick, P.J., concurring); see also Ex parte Smith, 977 S.W.2d 610, 611 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.l998)(<HOLDING>). 3 .Article 11.071 was the provision at issue
holding that a conclusory opinion may be rejected holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue recognizing ajlthough presiding judge mccormicks opinion in davis  is labeled a concurring opinion it was joined by a majority of the court and may be regarded as an opinion for the court holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence