# Russell v. Board of County Commissioners

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 24, 1997 · 69 O.B.A.J. 1886

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552097

## Case

- **Full name:** Earl RUSSELL, Gary Watson, Gary Smith, MacK Word, Steven Henson, Ruben Garcia, Kenneth Turner, Greg Theobald, Wayne Magee and Bryan Burton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CARTER COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 24, 1997
- **Citations:** 69 O.B.A.J. 1886; 952 P.2d 492; 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 50; 1997 OK 80; 1997 Okla. LEXIS 80; 1997 WL 366100
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Simms
- **Judges:** Opala, Kauger, Summers, Hodges, Lavender, Hargrave, Wilson, Simms, Watt
- **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552097

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in non-statute of frauds context, that doctrine of promissory estoppel, as set forth in § 90 of the Restatement, has been incorporated into Oklahoma’s common law, and that the elements of promissory estoppel are: "(1) a clear and unambiguous promise, (2) foreseeabilit…
- finding that “employee handbook may form the basis of an implied contract between an employer and its employees if four traditional contract requirements exist: (1) competent parties, (2) consent, (3) a legal object and (4) consideration” (footnotes omitted)
- holding that plaintiffs’ “evi-dentiary materials raise a material fact question whether the effectiveness of the Board’s written disclaimer is negated by inconsistent employer conduct.”

## Opinion text

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the county on its defense to the deputies’ contractual claims. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals and certiorari has not been sought to challenge it. Contrary to the majority’s view, this is not a situation like Hough v. Leonard, 1993 OK 112 , 867 P.2d 438 , where an alleged error was left unaddressed by the Court of Appeals although it was properly preserved and briefed on appeal. Here, the alleged error was not ignored or left unanswered. As is shown by the majority’s , excerpt, ante, fn. 4, from the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, the trial court’s ruling on the challenge to the contractual theory urged by the deputies was considered and determined by the Court of Appeals. While the treatment was admittedly cursory, the Court of Civil Appeals nonetheless decided the issue presented. It ruled in the county’s favor and affirmed the trial court’s resolution of that issue. But the Court of Appeals then gratuitously considered another issue — the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the claim of plaintiffs — which had not been urged or briefed by the parties and found it was determinative and required reversal of the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 2 The Court of Appeals’ unsolicited determination of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s application to this case is, as the majority finds, plain error. It is, however, the only issue properly before us. In the absence of an effort by the deputies to obtain certiorari review from this court on the issue of the contractual claims, we should affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the county.
I am authorized to state that Justice WATT joins me in the views expressed herein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552097. Public record. Not legal advice.