"Our supreme court has held that *** one who has obtained by judgment all that has been asked for in the trial court cannot appeal from the judgment." General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill. App. 3d 537, 544, 765 N.E.2d 1176 (2002). "Findings of the trial court adverse to the appellee do not require the appellee's cross-appeal if the judgment of the trial court was not at least in part against the appellee."

Blair, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 333. In this case, as both parties have filed motions for partial summary judgment, the respective burden falls on them as appropriate. General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill. App. 3d 537, 548 n. 6, 765 N.E.2d 1176 (2002). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally not appealable. Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 187 Ill. 2d 341, 357, 718 N.E.2d 191 (1999).

In this case, as both parties have filed motions for partial summary judgment, the respective burden falls on them as appropriate. General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill.App.3d 537, 548 n. 6, 262 Ill.Dec. 568, 765 N.E.2d 1176 (2002). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally not appealable.

In many jurisdictions, a statutory dedication conveys a fee interest to the public. See Gen. Auto Serv. Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill.App.3d 537, 262 Ill.Dec. 568, 765 N.E.2d 1176 (2002); Nettleton Church of Christ v. Conwill, 707 So.2d 1075 (Miss.1997). However, in other jurisdictions a statutory dedication may confer no further right than a mere easement.

Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 2004 Ariz. LEXIS 51, at *5 (holding, "[t]he effect of a common law dedication is that the public acquires an easement to use the property for the purposes specified, while the fee remains with the dedicator"); see Headley v. Northfield, 35 N.W.2d 606, 609 (Minn. 1949) (holding, "[t]he effect [of a common-law dedication] is to create only such an estate or right in the public as is necessary to enable it to enjoy the uses for which the dedication is made and to reserve the fee to the dedicator"); General Auto Serv. Station v. Maniatis, 765 N.E.2d 1176, 1183 (Ill.App. 2002) (holding, "a common law dedication keeps the fee vested in the donor, burdened with an easement over the way in question and subject to the acceptance of the easement by the public"); Cenac v. Pub. Access Water Rights Ass'n, 851 So.2d 1006, 1012 (La. 2003) (holding, "an implied dedication gives rise to a servitude of public use and does not transfer ownership"); C.J.S. Dedication § 2, 280 (2001) (common-law dedication). [¶ 15] Common-law dedication requires, (1) an intention to dedicate and, (2) public acceptance of the dedication.

A statutory dedication is created by a particular form of the instrument recorded, whereas a common-law dedication may be made by a written instrument or may be evidenced by acts and declarations without a writing. General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill.App.3d 537, 546-47 (2002). ¶ 17 On appeal, the plaintiffs assert only that the pond was transferred to the City via a common-law dedication.

¶ 25 The public alleyway here is no different from the public street in J & A Cantore ; title to both properties vested in fee to the public pursuant to a statutory dedication and they were both held in trust for public use by municipal entities. General Auto Services Station v. Maniatis , 328 Ill. App. 3d 537, 544, 262 Ill.Dec. 568, 765 N.E.2d 1176 (2002) (a statutory dedication vested fee to the premises in the public); Emalfarb v. Krater , 266 Ill. App. 3d 243, 248, 203 Ill.Dec. 666, 640 N.E.2d 325 (1994) (when the dedication is accepted, the grantee acquires title to the land upon an express charitable trust to use the property for public purposes). The fact that the 16-foot strip in this case was never developed or used as a public alleyway is immaterial because it remained a portion of a platted, dedicated and accepted public alleyway.

The movant may satisfy this burden by establishing an absence of evidence to support the plaintiff's case or by introducing evidence which would entitle it to judgment as a matter of law if uncontroverted. General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill. App. 3d 537, 543 (2002). While a plaintiff need not prove his case at the summary judgment stage, he must present a factual basis that arguably entitles him to judgment at trial.

Id. Further, as IDOT acknowledges, it filed no cross-appeal and thus cannot seek relief in this court on its own behalf. See General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill. App. 3d 537, 544 (2002) ("in the absence of a cross-appeal, an appellee will not be permitted to challenge or to ask the reviewing court to modify a portion of the trial court's order"). Accordingly, we decline to render any opinion regarding Bridgeview's argument that Morrison was liable for some or all of V-6's repayment obligations. ¶ 54 We next address the motion to disqualify Morrison.

Acceptance may be proved by evidence of: (1) direct municipal action, like the municipality's filing suit to establish dedication; (2) the municipality's possession or maintenance of the property; or (3) public use of the road for a substantial time. General Auto Service Station v. Maniatis, 328 Ill. App. 3d 537, 547 (2002). Where a dedication is very beneficial, very convenient, or necessary to the public, an acceptance of a dedication may be implied from slight circumstances.