necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.” Id. at 555. The court should, however, “confine itself to the evidence relevant to the jurisdictional issue.” Id. “Whether a determination of subject-matter jurisdiction can be made in a preliminary hearing or should await a fuller development of the merits of the case must be left largely to the trial court’s sound exercise of discretion.” Id. at 554. The “ultimate inquiry” in a challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction is whether the facts pled by the plaintiff and not negated, taken as true, and liberally construed “affirmatively demonstrate a claim or claims within the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” Brantley v. Tex. Youth Comm’n., 365 S.W.3d 89, 94 (Tex.App.Austin 2012, no pet.); see also Jud, 184 S.W.2d at 823 (<HOLDING>). When a plaintiff fails to demonstrate a
holding that since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis holding citys plea to the jurisdiction in rule 202 proceeding properly denied because district court had jurisdiction over portion of claim under investigation even if city and governmental agency had exclusive jurisdiction over another portion of claim holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement holding that determination whether plaintifffireman had alleged cause of action against members of pension fund board so that trial court had jurisdiction over that claim could not be determined in limine on a hearing of the plea to the jurisdiction but must await development of facts holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property