Texas Supreme Court’s discussion of the Stowers Exception claim in Phillips II is merely dicta. Even assuming arguendo that MedPro is correct, it is judicial dictum, and this court is obligated to follow its reasoning. Texas law distinguishes between obiter dictum, which is a judicial statement made in passing, and judicial dictum, which is “articulated very deliberately after mature consideration.” Elledge v. Friberg-Cooper Water Supply Corp., 240 S.W.3d 869, 870 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Lower courts need not follow obiter dictum. But judicial dictum "is at least persuasive and should be followed unless found to be erroneous.” Palestine Contractors, Inc. v. Perkins, 386 S.W.2d 764, 773 (Tex. 1965); see also Elledge, 240 S.W.3d at 870 (<HOLDING>). The discussion of the Stowers Exception claim
holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction  over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant holding that although not essential to the outcomes of two previous cases the court of appeals should have followed the texas supreme courts statements in those cases holding that the court of appeals has jurisdiction over murder cases under the constitution even if thornton directs such cases to be transferred to the supreme court recognizing that the supreme court in those cases was principally concerned with congressional intent but finding that the constitutional question was not far from the courts mind