while settlement negotiations were pending, the defendant filed a cash deposit in lieu of a bond to ensure that its appeal would be timely if negotiations were not fruitful. A few days later, the case settled, and the defendant paid the plaintiffs a large sum. The plaintiffs’ counsel demanded the additional five percent under the contingency agreement. This Court held that the case had been appealed and that the lawyers did not breach their contract or a fiduciary duty by charging the additional five percent. However, the three justices who decided the case in the court of appeals had concluded that when a case is “appealed to a higher court” was susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning. See Lopez v. Muoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 980 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998) (<HOLDING>) The Court’s decision today could be misread to
holding that based upon means similar to or supported by holding that in connection with means to coincide holding that wjhatever appealed to a higher court means it means more than filing a cash deposit in lieu of a cost bond and that is all that occurred here holding that wjhatever the procedure authorized by congress is it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned holding that for purposes of 18 usc  924c1 the law is well established that where an indictment charges in the conjunctive several means of violating a statute a conviction may be obtained on proof of only one of the means 