In Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Tex. 1993), the plaintiff sued a competitor for tortiously interfering with his street-sweeping contract with the State. The plaintiff offered evidence of mistreatment by the State and a comment by a State employee that the State was working with the defendant "'to get the plaintiff out of the contract.'" The Court held that the only inference that could be drawn from this evidence was that the defendant was cooperating with the State; it could not be inferred that the defendant was inducing the State to breach its contract with the plaintiff. In answer to the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's inducement could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence taken as a whole, we observed: "To the contrary, we believe that some suspicion linked to other suspicion produces only more suspicion, which is not the same as some evidence." Id. at 927.