Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566, 580 (Tex. 2013) (citing Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-46 (Tex. 1993)); see also Texas Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 445 (“Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised for the first time on appeal; it may not be waived by the parties.” (citations omitted)). 14 . Similarly, we have not belabored certain arguments raised by the parties that are ultimately misplaced or immaterial under the controlling legal principles. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. 15 . See, e.g., Ex parte Springsteen, 506 S.W.3d 789, 798 n.50 (Tex. App.-Austin 2016, pet. filed) (citing City of Elsa v. Gonzalez, 325 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam)). 16 . See, e.g., Wasson Interests, Ltd. v. City of Jacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427, 439 (Tex. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 343
recognizing a traditional distinction between the public and governmental acts of sovereign states on the one hand and their private and commercial acts on the other holding that the commonlaw distinction between governmental and proprietary acts known as the proprietarygovernmental dichotomyapplies in the contractclaims context just as it does in the tort claims context recognizing that intermediate scrutiny in the commercialspeech context allows some latitude between the regulation and the governmental objective holding even in context of employee manual that policy which included agreement to provide annual salary increase of five percent did not constitute contract between city and employees and distinction between atwill employees and public employees was not dispositive in this context holding same in the flsa retaliation context