Opinion ID: 2833512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petition and Brief

Text: We first address two questions of error preservation. First, Holten argues that Michiana cannot assert a minimum-contacts challenge because it was raised for the first time in Michiana’s brief on the merits rather than in its petition for review. [3] In its petition for review, Michiana stated the issue presented as follows: Whether factually and legally sufficient evidence exists in the Clerk’s Record to support the implied finding by the trial court that Michiana committed a tort in Texas C the only basis for personal jurisdiction over Michiana by Texas courts. Both the opinion below and the petition for review here list undisputed facts showing that Michiana had no contact with Texas or Texans except for the alleged tort. Michiana’s petition is correct C the sole ground on which the court of appeals based jurisdiction was the commission of a tort in Texas. [4] The argument that this conclusion was incorrect necessarily included the subsidiary argument detailed in Michiana’s brief C that without that ground, jurisdiction did not exist. This is all the rules require. [5]