holding an appeal to be untimely and unreviewable where the plaintiff filed both a motion to reconsider and a motion to amend her complaint, but where she waited until the denial of her motion to amend, which was subsequent both to the denial of her motion to reconsider and the passing of 30 days from the judgment
How later courts described this case
- holding an appeal to be untimely and unreviewable where the plaintiff filed both a motion to reconsider and a motion to amend her complaint, but where she waited until the denial of her motion to amend, which was subsequent both to the denial of her motion to reconsider and the passing of 30 days from the judgment
- holding that the appellate court's original July 1, 1999, decision was not final because the defendants had filed petitions for rehearing
- ruling that only a timely notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on an appellate court
- noting that when a petition for rehearing is filed, the judgment of the reviewing court does not become final until the petition is denied
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by LaGrange Memorial Hosp. v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 863 (2000)
We conclude that Berg is inapposite as it did not involve either Supreme Court Rule 303(d) or a docketing error on the part of counsel, similar to that in Herrin and the instant case.
The opinion
JUSTICE BILANDIC, also dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Rehearing in this case should not have been allowed. I agree with the original opinion that was filed in this cause, as quoted in Chief Justice Harrison’s separate dissent. I, however, do not join in the additional remarks set forth in Chief Justice Harrison’s dissent because they are not necessary for deciding the issue before us.