Kelley v. Apache Products, Inc.
| Citation | 709 S.W.2d 772 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-85-166,09-85-166 |
| Parties | William M. KELLEY, Appellant, v. APACHE PRODUCTS, INC., and Apache Products, Inc., d/b/a Acme Skid & Plug-Pallet Division, Appellee. CV. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment. William M. Kelley filed suit against Apache Products, Inc., and Apache Products, Inc., d/b/a Acme Skid and Plug-Pallett Division for breach of an oral contract of employment. He also alleged that Apache was barred by promissory estoppel and contended the acts or omissions of Apache constituted a tortious interference with a contract, a wrongful and tortious discharge and were done maliciously resulting from ill will and constituted gross negligence. Apache filed its motion for summary judgment alleging the contract was an employment-at-will contract, in violation of the statute of frauds and was without consideration.
Defendants moving for summary judgment must expressly present and conclusively prove all essential elements of their defense as a matter of law. There can be no genuine issues of material fact. In deciding whether there is a disputed material issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movants will be taken as true. Every reasonable inference from the evidence must be indulged in favor of the non-movants and any doubts resolved in their favor. Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.1984).
Kelley alleges five points of error. The first being a general point that the trial court erred in granting the motion and then three separate points on each of the allegations in the motion for summary judgment. The last point of error alleges the court erred in entering a final judgment because all the issues raised in Kelley's first amended original petition were not addressed in the motion for summary judgment and thus were not disposed of in the order granting the summary judgment. Apache has not addressed this point of error in their brief. A summary judgment for a defendant which disposes of the entire case is proper only if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not succeed upon any theories plead. Delgado v. Burns, 656 S.W.2d 428 (Tex.1983). Apache's motion for summary judgment does not go to the allegations of promissory estoppel, tortious interference with the contract or the wrongful discharge based upon malice, ill will or gross negligence. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayburn v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the US
...denied); Ramos v. Henry C. Beck Co., 711 S.W.2d 331, 336 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, no writ); Kelley v. Apache Products, Inc., 709 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); United Transp. Union v. Brown, 694 S.W.2d 630, 633 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.);......
-
Young v. Ward
...writ denied) (on rehearing) (employment contract of indefinite duration not within statute); Kelley v. Apache Products, Inc., 709 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (same); Robertson v. Pohorelsky, 583 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (e......
-
Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Hatridge
...one year. See Ramos v. Henry C. Beck Co., 711 S.W.2d 331, 336 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no writ); Kelley v. Apache Products, Inc., 709 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We need not decide whether the alleged agreement must have been in writing to be enforceable, howe......
-
Brown v. Montgomery County Hosp. Dist., 09-95-020CV
...oral agreement not to fire an employee except for "good cause" modifies the at-will status); Kelley v. Apache Products, Inc., 709 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (any employment at-will contract can be modified by an oral agreement); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 6......