In its response to the plaintiffs writ of error to this Court, the defendant did not raise the jurisdictional defect in the court of appeals. Nevertheless, we held that fundamental error applied, reaffirming the definition from Ramsey. 304 S.W.2d at 265. We expanded on the definition, holding that “[w]hen the record affirmatively and conclusively shows that the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction of the subject matter, the error will also be regarded as fundamental.” Id. at 266. Accordingly, we held that this Court had the power to reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and we dismissed the appeal on the unassigned jurisdictional error. Id. Ramsey and McCauley were watershed decisions, establishing that fundamental-error review is not barr S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>); McCauley, 304 S.W.2d at 265-66 (applying
holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error holding that it is a fundamental principle of appellate law that appeal jurisdiction is only available to parties recognizing plain or fundamental error holding that appellate courts assumption of jurisdiction over interlocutory order when not expressly authorized to do so by statute is fundamental jurisdictional error holding lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is fundamental error that this court may properly raise and recognize sua sponte