was not the primary focus of the case and declaring that the discussion was not necessary to our decision. 146 S.W.3d at 136-37 (Owen, J., dissenting). While the dissent is correct that two separate issues were raised in Lindsey — namely whether there was an accident and, if so, whether the accident arose from the use of the vehicle — that the first issue did not receive the majority of our attention does not make it any less essential to the holding. We expressly premised our holding in Lindsey on the assumption that the policy required an “auto accident.” Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d at 155-56. Thus, we did not simply determine that an accident had occurred, and our statement cannot be disregarded as dicta. See Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. White, 46 S.W.3d 864, 868 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). We also note that the agency entrusted with
holding that notwithstanding the above and beyond language on the disposition form the discussion at resentencing revealed that the trial court understood its obligation to and its intent to give the defendant credit for time served holding without discussion that premiranda silence could not be used in the states caseinchief but finding the error harmless holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that the courts discussion of motordriven equipment in schaefer v city of san antonio 838 sw2d 688 693 texappsan antonio 1992 no writ could not be disregarded as dicta because the court relied on the discussion to support its ultimate conclusion holding without discussion that a banks lobbying activities designed to obtain the passage of a minnesota statute were not state action