Certiorari Denied, No. 28,893, October 20, 2004 OPINION ¶1 This appeal requires us to review the trial court's entry of summary judgment against Plaintiffs on the one remaining count in their complaint, that of breach of contract. We consider whether policies and procedures governing the employment of state police officers create an implied contract regarding terms of employment and, if so, whether the implied contract constitutes a ""valid written contract,"" such that immunity is waived under the terms of NMSA 1978, § 37-1-23(A) (1976). We answer in the affirmative; however, the trial court must still determine the remaining issues. In this case, the trial court bifurcated consideration of the summary judgment motion into parts and postponed consideration of issues related to grievance procedures and the statute of limitations until after the contract issues were decided. It appears that the implied contract requires certain procedures to be followed when an employee believes a term of employment has not been followed and that these procedures do not contemplate direct suit to district court.1 We do not reach this procedural issue in this opinion but confine our discussion to whether there is a valid written contract giving rise to a waiver of immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's summary judgment and remand for consideration of the remaining arguments in Defendants' motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND
