appellate court in any case in which a final adjudication in an investigation of the mental condition of any person alleged to be disabled, incapacitated, or mentally ill has been made. The appeal may be made by the petitioner who applied for such adjudication, or by the person alleged to be disabled, incapacitated, or mentally ill, or by any relative of such person, or by any reputable citizen of the county in which the hearing occurred, or by an attorney for any of the foregoing persons. We agree as “any relative” of Whittaker’s, Nelson would have standing pursuant to this section to appeal. However, reading the plain language of this section, an appeal would be limited to challenging the probate court’s ruling that Whittaker was incapacitated. See Walker, 875 S.W.2d at 151 (<HOLDING>). Yet, Nelson does not question the propriety
holding an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and cannot be later challenged holding that a ruling from a prior decision of this court becomes the law of the case that cannot be challenged in a later proceeding quotation marks omitted recognizing the difference between jurisdiction over an action and jurisdiction over an issue and holding that although section 2074207 vests the family court with exclusive jurisdiction over actions to determine paternity under section 621302a1 the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of paternity when the issue is essential to the probate courts determination of heirs holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case holding later in the opinion this court derived jurisdiction from section 472170 when second cousin challenged probate courts ruling ward was partially incapacitated