413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)). 46 . Edgewood III, 826 S.W.2d at 495. 47 . Edgewood II, 804 S.W.2d at 497; see also Edgewood IV, 917 S.W.2d at 726. 48 . Of course, consolidation may not always be attainable or efficient. Perhaps local residents of McLennan County, for example, prefer to pay extra so their students can be distributed among 20 different school districts, or perhaps this is the most efficient system. But surely sometimes consolidation wo . Raines, 521 U.S. at 819-20, 117 S.Ct. 2312 ("We have always insisted on strict compliance with this jurisdictional standing requirement. And our standing inquiry has been especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the o -58 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). 81 . See TEX. ELEC. CODE § 41.001. 82 . A
holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable holding experts failure to explain how various factors affected his calculations rendered opinion unreliable holding an experts testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes