Court Opinion

ID: 9860129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:11:50.064915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:06.041332
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON delivered the supplemental opinion of the court, on denial of Petition for Rehearing: In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs make two contentions: (1) that the trial court erred in dismissing their amended complaint, and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to aHow plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ first contention is that their amended complaint aHeged facts sufficient to state a cause of action on a theory of impfied contract, and that the trial court erred in dismissing it. We have discussed this point in our opinion and we stand on our original holding that plaintiffs’ amended complaint did not allege and the trial court did not consider an implied contract theory. Therefore, we will not now consider this point. Addressing their second contention, plaintiffs argue that the trial court’s refusal to allow a second amended complaint resulted in a substantial injustice. They argue that the appellate court should relax the rules pertaining to its scope of review.  It is well established that a point not raised or argued in the original brief, but urged for the first time in a petition for rehearing, is considered to be waived. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, par. 341(e) (7).) A review of plaintiffs-appellants’ brief shows that the issue of the propriety of a second amended complaint was not raised, briefed or argued. We are not persuaded to relax this rule. Plaintiffs filed one amendment to their complaint and we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. Petition denied. DEMPSEY, P. J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.