Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/372/765/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/372/765/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
WILLIAMS v. ZUCKERT, 372 U.S. 765 (1963)
372 U.S. 765 WILLIAMS v. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
No. 133.
Decided April 22, 1963.
Rehearing granted; order dismissing writ of certiorari vacated; judgment of Court of Appeals vacated; and case remanded to District Court for further proceedings.
Reported below: 111 U.S. App. D.C. 294, 296 F.2d 416.
David I. Shapiro and Sidney Dickstein for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Stephen J. Pollak, Alan S. Rosenthal and David L. Rose for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
In view of the factual contentions advanced in the petition for rehearing filed by the petitioner and in the respondents' reply thereto, the petition for rehearing is granted and the order heretofore entered, 371 U.S. 531, dismissing the writ of certiorari is vacated. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to hold a hearing and determine whether the petitioner, desiring the presence of witness at his hearing, either discharged his initial burden under the applicable regulations by making timely and sufficient attempt to obtain their presence or, under the circumstances and without fault of his own, was justified in failing to make such attempt, and, if so, whether proper and timely demand was made upon the Air Force so that it was required to produce such witnesses for cross-examination. Upon making such determination, the District Court shall thereupon enter such further order or judgment as may be appropriate.
