54, her August 11, 1998 rough draft of the minutes of the August 11 special meeting. 10 .D’Unger asserts appellants had agreed to produce DuBose at trial, but had not agreed as to when they would produce him. 11 . In Rendon, the supreme court granted the parties’ joint motion to grant the petition and to remand the case to the trial court. See Rendon v. Avance, 67 S.W.3d 303, 310 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. granted, w.r.m.); see also Tex.R.App. P. 56.3 (order on petition for review when case settled by agreement of parties). The opinion of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals was not vacated and has the precedential value of a petition dismissed case. See Tex.R.App. P. 56.3. 1 . But see Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). A unanimous supreme court, without discussing
holding that legalsufficiency review is conducted by considering all the record evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party indulging every reasonable inference in that partys favor holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party holding that when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government holding record is viewed in light most favorable to verdict