Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morrey v. Kinetic Services

OPINION FILED MAY 21, 1985.

KEVIN P. MORREY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

KINETIC SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Reginald J. Holzer, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE BILANDIC DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Rehearing denied June 26, 1985.

Plaintiff filed a suit in chancery for specific performance, damages and other relief, based on defendant's breach of an alleged employment contract. Leave was given to incorporate the agreement dated October 28, 1981, and an alleged amendment dated May 5, 1982, as exhibits. The complaint, as amended, remained the basis for plaintiff's action.

Defendant filed a motion to strike and dismiss plaintiff's complaint, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for summary judgment and a motion to transfer the case from chancery to the law division. Defendant also filed an answer and affirmative defenses, which were later withdrawn prior to ruling on defendant's motions.

On February 7, 1984, an order was entered which stated in part:

"WHEREFORE:

(1) Defendant's motion to strike and dismiss plaintiff's complaint as amended is denied;

(2) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is not ripe for consideration and is, therefore, denied;

(3) Defendant's motion to transfer the case from Chancery court is denied;

(4) Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his pleadings within thirty days from the date of this order."

Having upheld the plaintiff's complaint, it was obviously not necessary to grant the plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings. Therefore the court, on its own motion, entered an order on February 9, 1984, striking subparagraph (4) from the order of February 7, 1984. The motion for summary judgment was not mentioned in the February 7 or February 9 orders.

Defendant promptly filed a motion to reconsider; its second motion to strike and dismiss; a motion for summary judgment with supporting affidavits; and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Simultaneously, defendant filed a verified answer with affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed counteraffidavits in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment.

On May 31, 1984, an order was entered, from which plaintiff appeals, which states:

"This matter came to be heard on motions of defendant to Reconsider the Order of February 7, 1984, to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint, for Summary Judgment, Judgment on the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.