law-plea-to-jurisdiction-consideration-of-facts
ROLE OF FACTS IN JURISDICTIONAL PLEAS
A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea used to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the
asserted claims have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The plea
challenges the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638
(Tex. 1999). Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.
Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation
Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002).
The plaintiff has the burden to plead facts affirmatively showing that the trial court has jurisdiction. Tex. Ass'n of
Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993); Univ. of N. Tex. v. Harvey, 124 S.W.3d 216, 220
(Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied). We assume the truth of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the
pleadings unless the defendant presents evidence to negate their existence. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (citing
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 555). If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the jurisdictional facts, we
consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. City of Waco v.
Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 618, 622 (Tex. 2008) (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227); see Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.
W.3d at 555. If that evidence creates a fact issue as to jurisdiction, then it is for the fact-finder to decide. City of
Waco, 298 S.W.3d at 622; Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28. "However, if the relevant evidence is undisputed or
fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a
matter of law." Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. After the defendant "asserts and supports with evidence that the
trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, we simply require the plaintiffs, when the facts underlying the merits
and subject matter jurisdiction are intertwined, to show that there is a disputed material fact regarding the
jurisdictional issue." Id. This standard "generally mirrors" that of a traditional motion for summary judgment. Id.
When reviewing a plea to the jurisdiction in which the pleading requirement has been met and evidence has
been submitted to support the plea that implicates the merits of the case, we take as true all evidence favorable
to the non-movant. Id.; see County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002). We do not "weigh
the claims' merits but must consider only the plaintiffs' pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional
inquiry." Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555.
Tex. Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) (“[I]n some cases,
disputed evidence of jurisdictional facts that also implicate the merits of the case may require
resolution by the finder of fact.”) Cited by: TxDoT v. York, No. 07-0743 (Tex. Dec. 5, 2008)(per curiam)
(TTCA, dangerous road conditions, special defect)
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE