McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist.

Decision Date14 August 1991
Docket NumberNo. 3-91-016-CV,3-91-016-CV
Citation814 S.W.2d 247
CourtTexas Court of Appeals
PartiesJohn S. McCONNELL, Appellant, v. SOUTHSIDE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; David S. Smith, Miguel M. Fernandez, Sammie Kerby, Joe L. Weiss, Mack C. Stallcup, and Gilbert P. Arredondo in their Individual and Official Capacities as Trustees of the Southside Independent School District; and Julian Gonzales in his Official Capacity as Trustee of the Southside Independent School District, Appellees.

James M. Heidelberg, San Antonio, for appellant.

John T. Fleming, Austin, for appellees.

Before CARROLL, C.J., and JONES and SMITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this cause is whether a motion for summary judgment states specific grounds as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c). Appellant John S. McConnell sued appellees Southside Independent School District; David S. Smith, Miguel M. Fernandez, Sammie Kerby, Joe L. Weiss, Mack C. Stallcup, Gilbert P. Arredondo in their individual and official capacities as trustees of the Southside Independent School District; and Julian Gonzales in his official capacity as trustee of the Southside Independent School District. 1 The district court rendered a take-nothing summary judgment against McConnell from which he appeals by a single point of error.

The Southside Independent School District employed McConnell as a teacher, but the district failed to renew his contract for the 1983-1984 school year. McConnell appealed to the district's board of trustees, which denied him any relief. See The Term Contract Nonrenewal Act, 1981 Tex.Gen.Laws, ch. 765, at 2847 [Tex.Educ.Code §§ 21.201-.211, since amended]. McConnell appealed the board of trustees' decision to the commissioner of education and subsequently to the state board of education, arguing that the failure to grant him a continuance during the hearing before the board of trustees violated fourteenth amendment due process guarantees. Both the commissioner of education and the state board of education denied McConnell's appeals. See id.

McConnell filed suit in state district court, appealing the final order of the state board of education and asserting de novo claims of deprivation of fourteenth amendment due process guarantees. The state district court dismissed the appeal due to McConnell's failure to file an adequate motion for rehearing with the state board of education. See Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, 1975 Tex.Gen.Laws, ch. 61, § 16(e), at 145 [Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 6252-13a, § 16(e), since amended]. McConnell's de novo claims of deprivation of fourteenth amendment due process guarantees were removed to federal district court by appellees, but were subsequently remanded to state court. The state district court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, which is the subject of this appeal.

In his sole point of error, McConnell alleges that the state district court erred in granting summary judgment because appellees' motion for summary judgment did not state the specific grounds as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c). Tex.R.Civ.P.Ann. 166a(c) (Supp.1991). 2 The motion for summary judgment is accompanied by a twelve-page brief in support, which details the grounds for the summary judgment.

McConnell does not attack the specificity of the brief in support of the motion for summary judgment, but merely the fact that the specific grounds are not contained in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Brand
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 3, 1995
    ...movant to set forth the specific grounds for summary judgment in a brief accompanying the motion. McConnell v. Southside Ind. Sch. Dist., 814 S.W.2d 247, 248 (Tex.App.--Austin 1991). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Austin Court of Appeals. The supreme court held that specific grounds f......
  • McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist., D-1659
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 21, 1993
  • Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ammons
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 9, 1992
    ...the type of "written motion, answer or other response" contemplated by rule 166a(c). See S. McConnell v. Southside Indep. School Dist., 814 S.W.2d 247, 248 (Tex.App.--Austin 1991, writ granted) (Rule 166a allows a summary judgment movant to set out the specific grounds for summary judgment ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT