$200.01. DISCUSSION Whether a plaintiff has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex.2010). Although both Allen and the Appellees agree that the district court has jurisdiction over Allen’s claim, we must determine the issue because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement. Burke v. Satterfield, 525 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex.1975); Walls Regional Hosp. v. Altaras, 903 S.W.2d 36, 40-41 (Tex.App.Waco 1994, no writ). Until 1985, both the Texas Constitution and the civil statu 97077 at *2, (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi July 28, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that “minimum amount needed to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court is $500”) and (<HOLDING>), and Le Clair v. Wood, No. 10-04-00232-CV,
holding that the district court erred in not determining whether the amount in controversy necessary to create diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal holding that district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a coplaintiff claim that fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement holding that the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy holding minimum amount in controversy required for district court jurisdiction is 20001 holding that summary judgment on one claim that reduced amount in controversy below statutory minimum did not divest court of jurisdiction