GYPSY OIL COMPANY
v.
LEO BENNETT ESCOE, A MINOR, BY O. W. STEPHENS, GUARDIAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court denied Gypsy Oil Company's petition for certiorari to review an Oklahoma Supreme Court judgment because the petition was filed more than three months after the denial of the first petition for rehearing, exceeding the statutory deadline under the 1925 act. The Court held that while the time for filing suit is suspended by a timely petition for rehearing, it resumes running from the date that petition is denied, and merely presenting a motion for leave to file a second petition for rehearing does not suspend the deadline again unless that motion is actually granted and the second petition is entertained by the court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
This petition.for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma is denied.
The application was. not made in accordance with § 8 .(a), act óf February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 940, which provides:
“ No writ of error, appeal, or. writ of certiorari shall be allowed, or entertained unless application therefor be duly made within three' months after the entry of such judgment or decree * *
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered March 22, 1927. A timely petition for rehearing was . denied June 14, 1927.' On June 18, 1927, an application for leave to file a second petition for rehearing was endorsed:
“ Leave granted to file — Fred C. Branson, Chief Justice.”
“ On August 2, 1927, as appears from the minutes, the following proceedings were taken by the court:
' “ Gypsy Oil Company v. Escoe, et aL Application for leave to file a second petition for rehearing denied; application for. oral argument dénied. Fred C. Branson, Chief Justice.”
. On September 30,' 1927, more than three months after denial'of the petition for rehearing (June 14), the present petition for certiorari was filed. -
The running of the-time within which’proceedings.may be initiated here to bring up 'judgment or decree for review is suspended by the seasonable filing of a petition for rehearing. But it begins to run from the date of denial of such petition and further suspension can not be obtained by the mere presentation of a motion for leave to file a second request for rehearing. Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 153, 154.
Messrs. Chester I. Long, George E. Chamberlain, Peter Q. Nyce and James B. Diggs for petitioner. Mr. Creekmore Wallace for respondent.
If, however, a timely motion for leave to file the second petition is granted, and the petition is actually entertained by the Court, then the time within which application may be made here for certiorari begins to run from the day when the Court denies such second petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pfister v. N. Ill. Fin. Corp., 317 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1942)…running of the time, and limitation upon proceedings for review begins from the date of denial of the petition for rehearing. Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 153-4; United States v. Seminole Nation, 299 U. S. 417, 421; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe, 275 U. S. 498. Bernards v. Johnson, 314 U. S. 19, 31; Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U. S. 262, and cases cited; Chapman v. Federal Land Bank, 117 F. 2d 321, 324. 172 U. S. 662. Abrogated January 16, 1939, effective February 13, 1939. 305 U. S. 681. American Trust C…
-
Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1943)…in Ice Co. v. United States, 87 F. 2d 174; Suggs v. Mutual Benefit Assn., 115 F. 2d 80; Neely v. Merchants Trust Co., 110 F. 2d 525; United States v. Steinberg, 100 F. 2d 124. See also Citizens Bank v. Oppermm, 249 U. S. 448; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe, 275 U. S. 498; Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corp., 317 U. S. 144. The 10 day limit for filing fixed in Rule 59 cannot be enlarged under Rule 6 (b) except as provided in subsection (c) of Rule 59.…
-
Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1940)…S. C. (1934) § 202. In re Bowman, 110 F. 2d 348. Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 153, 154; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U. S. 131, 137. Voorhees v. John T. Noye Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 135, 137; Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe, 275 U. S. 498, 499; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., supra, 137, 138.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morse v. United States, 270 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1926)