There is no question that the district court ruled as you say. And the appellate court mentions these facts. But mentioning is not ruling. My question is whether the appellate court upheld that ruling. Show me the words where the appellate court did this. I keep reading that it wasn't ruled on it because Patriot had settled and B&O did not have standing to appeal that portion of the courts ruling. The appellate court only upheld B&Os disqualification. If all we have is a lower court ruling, then it is not the precedent you suggested when this thread started. I'm only trying to get at what exactly are the facts as far as there being appellant court precedent in the case of Higgins testimony. I am not trying to be argumentative. Opty.