With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court noted, on the day it granted the Motion, that the Reply Evidence was timely because it was filed more than 21 days before the March 18 submission date. One inaccurate statement made in passing in the argument section of the Brokers' appellate brief should not change the analysis. A judicial admission must be clear, deliberate, and unequivocal. See Regency Advantage Ltd. P'ship v. Bingo Idea-Watauga, Inc., 936 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex.1996). The Brokers do not clearly, deliberately, and unequivocally admit that the trial court stated that it did not consider the Reply Evidence, and they certainly do not admit that the trial court did not consider the Reply Evidence. See OAIC Comm. Assets, L.L.C. v. Stonegate Village, L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 742-43 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. filed) (<HOLDING>). In their response to the Insureds' motion for

A: holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant
B: holding that appellate briefing did not contain unequivocal and deliberate admission in light of all the arguments and statements made in the briefing
C: recognizing that lack of briefing and argumentation can lead to problems in the development of the law and noting that our precedents require us to defer to another day the other issues that the litigants have not brought to us
D: holding that only deliberate clear and unequivocal statements can constitute conclusive judicial admissions
B.