Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 8117 (one year); Ga.Code.Ann. § 9-2-61 (six months); 735 Ill.Comp.Stat. 5/13-217 (one year); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2305.19 (one year); Tenn.Code.Ann. § 28-1-105 (one year); N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 205(a) (McKinney 1990) (six months); W.Va.Code § 55-2-18 (one year). A plaintiff should not be permitted to extend the re-filing period beyond the limitations period fixed by section 16.064 by filing one or more discretionary appeals which are later dismissed. Therefore, if presented with the facts of this case, it is likely that the Texas Court of Appeals would hold that a dismissal becomes “final” after it is affirmed on appeal, not after discretionary appeals, such as petitions for rehearing or a writ of certiorari, are denied. Cf. Click v. Ballentine Produce, Inc., 397 F.2d 590, 594 (8th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>); Lehman Bros. v. Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that filing of petition for writ of certiorari did not prevent judgment from becoming final for purposes of limitations period of missouri savings statute which provided that plaintiff who suffers nonsuit in wrongful death action may commence new action within one year thereafter (B) holding new mexico statute of limitations for filing a  1983 action is three years (C) holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted (D) recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review (E) holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired
Output (English): recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review