to award attorney’s fees to appellees. By affirming the trial court’s judgment, our judgment essentially adopted the judgment of the trial court dismissing the case for lack of juris diction. Because the trial court did not award attorney’s fees to the appellees in its judgment — and the appellees did not raise this failure to award fees as an issue in Medina I — our opinion and judgment in Medina I closed the door on the possibility of the appellees recovering their attorney’s fees in this case. See, e.g., Martin, 824 S.W.2d at 257 (trial court erred by granting relief not specified in appellate court’s mandate after court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment); see also Tex. R.App. PROC. 38.1(i); San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 209-10 (Tex.1990) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Citing to Civil Practices & Remedies Code §
holding argument not asserted before district court is waived on appeal holding the issue of standing is waived if not asserted at the district court level holding under former rule 52a appellant must object to alleged error in the trial court or such error is waived holding that appellant who merely listed  points of error without further argument or explanation had waived those issues for failure to brief holding it is a wellestablished rule that grounds of error not asserted by points of error or argument in the court of appeals are waived