 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Abbott v. Pollock5/15/1997
Filed: May 15, 1997
Appellants Bill Abbott, J. M. Bonnet, Karen Johnson, Larry Krueger, Sylvia Morin, Kay Pearson, Pat Wall, Conrad Whitacre, and Dennis Wilie appeal a trial court's judgement granting summary judgment in favor of appellees Sheriff Joe Pollock and Burnet County, and denying partial summary judgement in favor of appellants. Appellants raise four points of error challenging the trial court's granting of summary judgment in appellees' favor and denying partial summary judgement for appellants. In three points of error, appellants contend the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgement because appellees were not entitled to judgement as a matter of law and because there are genuine issues of material fact. In their fourth point of error, appellants assert that the trial court erred by denying appellants' motion for partial summary judgement on their breach of contract claim. We will affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Appellants are former employees of the Burnet County Sheriff's Department and served the department under former Sheriff Weldon Buck. Appellants Abbott, Bonnet, Krueger, Wilie, Conrad, and Wall were deputies while appellants Johnson, Morin, and Pearson served as clerical personnel. Appellee Sheriff Joe Pollock was elected sheriff of Burnet County and took office on January 1, 1993. As sheriff-elect, Pollock informed Sheriff Buck's employees that anyone who desired to be considered for employment in his administration should submit an application. Upon taking office, Sheriff Pollock hired several of former Sheriff Buck's employees, but did not rehire appellants.
Appellants filed suit against Sheriff Pollock and Burnet County claiming they breached an employment contract that existed between appellants and Burnet County. Appellants assert that the Burnet County Personnel Policies (the "Personnel Policies") adopted by the County Commissioners Court created an employment contract. Appellants brought additional causes of action for defamation, tortious interference with a contract, and negligent misrepresentation. Appellees moved for summary judgment on all of appellants' causes of action, and appellants moved for partial summary judgement on their breach of contract claim. The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of appellees and denied partial summary judgement for appellants. Appellants raise four points of error on appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appellants contend the trial court erred (1) by granting appellees' motion for summary judgement because appellees were not entitled to summary judgement as a matter of law and because there are genuine issues of material fact and (2) by denying appellants' motion for partial summary judgement on their breach of contract claim. We will review the granting of summary judgement individually as to each of appellants' claims against appellees.
There are two instances in which summary judgement for a defendant is proper: first, when a plaintiff's allegation fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law, Maranatha Temple, Inc. v. Enterprise Products Co., 893 S.W.2d 92, 98 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied), and second, when the defendant has produced competent evidence negating a necessary element of the plaintiff's cause of action or establishing all elements of its defense as a matter of law. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996); Gibbs v. General Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex.1970). The standards for reviewing a motion for summary judgement are well established: (1) The movant for summary judgement has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|