Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe
Gypsy Oil Company v. Leo Bennett Escoe, a Minor, by O. W. Stephens, Guardian
Opinion
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 *499 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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(after the special master refused to disgorge excessive pay, requiring the special master to show cause why he should not be disbarred and punished for contempt)
-
("If ... a timely motion for leave to file [a] second petition [for rehearing] is granted, and the petition is actually entertained by the Court, then the time within which application may be made ... for certiorari begins to run from the day when the Court denies such second petition.")
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Eldon T. Cordoza, Bruce Train Hans Lemcke Theodore Sorensen Passco Administrative Services, Inc. Passco Development, LLC v. Pacific States Steel Corporation, and Rust Remedial Services Holding Company, Inc. Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Union City, Real Parties in Interest- . Eldon T. Cordoza John Franco Theodore Kutsuki Santos Mora Eugene Luna Ray Seccombe, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bruce Train, Rust Remedial Services Holding Company, Inc. Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Union City, Real Parties in Interest-
- Cordoza v. Pacific States Steel Corp.
- David A. Clarke v. United States
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe
- Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.
- Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.