holding that section 2 — 1203 does not require specificity despite judicial dictum stating to the contrary
How later courts described this case
- holding that section 2 — 1203 does not require specificity despite judicial dictum stating to the contrary
- clarifying that the order from which the plaintiff appealed from was the order granting summary judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Robertson v. WINNEBAGO CTY. FOREST PRESERVE DIST., 301 Ill. App. 3d 520 (1998)
We disagree with the court in Berg that a party need not set forth any basis in support of a section 2-1203 motion as long as the motion contains a conclusory statement requesting the court to reconsider or vacate its decision.
The opinion
PRESIDING JUSTICE CAMPBELL, specially concurring:
I write separately to note that I am not in accord with the majority opinion’s discussion of Beck v. Stepp, 144 Ill. 2d 232 , 579 N.E.2d 824 (1991), and Andersen v. Resource Economics Corp., 133 Ill. 2d 342 , 549 N.E.2d 1262 (1990). However, as the majority opinion addresses the merits of the appeal, I also note my agreement with the majority’s conclusion that there are material questions of fact regarding breach of duty and proximate causation that preclude the entry of summary judgment, given the facts and circumstances in this case.