Gypsy Oil Co. v. Escoe
Headline: Court denies late petition to review a state-court judgment, holding rehearing denial starts the three-month deadline and a motion for leave to file another rehearing does not pause the clock.
Holding: The Court refused to hear the case because the petition was filed after the three-month deadline that began when the rehearing was denied, and a later motion for leave to file another rehearing does not extend that deadline.
- Requires petitions within three months after rehearing is denied.
- A mere motion for leave to file another rehearing does not delay the deadline.
- If a second rehearing is granted and considered, the deadline runs from its denial.
Summary
Background
An oil company sought review here after a judgment was entered by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on March 22, 1927. A timely petition for rehearing was denied on June 14, 1927. An application for leave to file a second petition for rehearing was endorsed on June 18 and the court minutes on August 2 show the application was later denied and oral argument was denied. The present petition for review was filed on September 30, 1927, more than three months after the June 14 denial.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether asking permission to file a second rehearing pauses the three‑month deadline to seek review here. It explained that filing a timely petition for rehearing does suspend the time while that petition is pending, but the three‑month period begins to run from the date the rehearing is denied. The Court held that merely presenting a motion for leave to file a second rehearing does not further suspend the running of time. The opinion cites Morse v. United States and adds that if leave to file a second petition is granted and that second petition is actually considered, then the time runs from the denial of that second petition.
Real world impact
The decision enforces strict timing for bringing state-court judgments here for review. Parties must file within three months after a rehearing is denied; asking for permission to file another rehearing will not extend that deadline unless the court actually grants and entertains the second petition. As a result, the late petition for review in this case was denied.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?