City of Gadsden v. Roy Harbin

Summary

The court reversed the denial of the City's summary-judgment motion and remanded for entry of judgment in the City's favor. Harbin failed to identify a definite contract with the City concerning pension benefits or present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on contract existence. The court also held that, because Harbin had not vested in the pension plan when the legislature amended it in 1975, the plan's terms were subject to legislative modification.