law-subject-matter-jurisdiction | plea to the jurisdiction | motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction |
Dismissal for want of jurisdiction
DWOJ | jurisdictional dismissal of appeal |

Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised for the first time on appeal, and
may not be
waived by the parties. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993).
Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, standing cannot be waived and may be
raised for the first time on appeal. Id.

A court must have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide a case.  Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v.
Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993).  The determination as to
whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex.1998).  

Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.  See
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998).  We consider only evidence relevant to
the jurisdictional inquiry and construe the pleadings in the plaintiff's favor, looking to the pleader's intent
and accepting all his allegations as true.  Patton v. Jones, 212 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Tex. App.- Austin 2006,
pet. denied) (op. on reh'g) (citing County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002) and Bland
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000)).  We presume that a trial court has jurisdiction
unless the absence of jurisdiction affirmatively appears on the face of the petition.  French v. Moore, 169 S.
W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); see also Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co. of San Antonio,
779 S.W.2d 802, 805 (Tex. 1989) (explaining that in the absence of objections by the defendant to curable
pleading defects, “the plaintiff may proceed to trial, however defective its allegations").  Thus, to defeat
jurisdiction, the plaintiff's pleadings must demonstrate an
incurable defect that deprives the court of
subject-matter jurisdiction.  Patton, 212 S.W.3d at 545.
Credigy Receivables, Inc v. Mahinay (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 30, 2009  (op. by Guzman)
(
county court had jurisdiction to entertain application to confirm arbitration award in credit card debt suit
regardless of
whether TAA or FAA applied)(dismissal reversed)  
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by
Justice Guzman    
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan  
14-07-01091-CV Credigy Receivables, Inc v. Alexander R. Mahinay  
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court
Judge: R. Jack Cagle

TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE