The second district clarifies its earlier decision on the effect of a new claim on a previously-entered rule 304(a) finding

The Second District’s decision in this case was the subject of an earlier post. See Heed the appeal deadline after a Rule 304(a) finding (August 30, 2013). On denial of rehearing, the court issued a supplemental opinion which, among other things, made clear that it did not create any new balancing test for whether a new Rule 304(a) finding may be necessary after leave to file a new claim is granted. In the court’s own words (which quoted the court’s own words): “To be clear, there is no new test. We plainly stated the bright-line nature of our holding: ‘merely by obtaining leave to file a claim does not trigger the need for a new Rule 304(a) finding.’”

Now you know.

Zamora v. Montiel, 2013 IL App (2d) 130579 (supplemental opinion upon denial of rehearing).