was ordering a new trial, the Texas Supreme Court stated in R.R. Street II that it would not consider whether evidence of those elements was conclusive and therefore able to support summary judgment. See R.R. Street II, 166 S.W.3d at 253. R.R. Street I therefore remains the only Texas court interpretation of the relevant provision and the best indication of how the Texas Supreme Court would decide this question. See Vine Street, LLC v. Keeling, 460 F.Supp.2d 728, 755 & n. 111 (E.D.Tex.2006) (citing Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir.1992)). The court must follow that ruling unless it is convinced that the Texas Supreme Court would rule otherwise. See, e.g., First Nat’l Bank of Durant v. Trans Terra Corp. Int’l, 142 F.3d 802, 809 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). R.R. Street I and R.R. Street II do not, as
holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state holding that when highest court of state has not decided particular issue of substantive law federal court faced with this issue in diversity must make an erie guess as to how highest court would rule holding that when making such a guess under erie r r co v tompkins 304 us 64 58 sct 817 82 led 1188 1938 a federal court is bound by an intermediate state appellate court decision unless convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise holding federal courts are bound to follow intermediate state appellate court decisions unless there is persuasive evidence that the states highest court would rule otherwise holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts