negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.... [I]f the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law.”). We overrule Scarbrough’s seventh issue. Terms of Judgment In her sixth issue, Scarbrough argues that, even if the trial court correctly determined that she lacked standing to bring her claims, it erred in issuing a take-nothing judgment against her, rather than dismissing her claims without prejudice. Scarbrough is correct that the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction prevented it from entering a judgment on the merits. See Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 443 (<HOLDING>). However, the trial court’s order here does
holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider ftca claim holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction holding that the law of the case doctrine is not a fixed rule that prevents a federal court from determining the question of its own subject matter jurisdiction in a given case holding that standing is implicit in trial courts subject matter jurisdiction to consider case holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived