WILLIAMS
v.
ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL.
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.
In this administrative law case, the Supreme Court vacated its previous dismissal of a petition for certiorari and remanded to the District Court to determine whether an Air Force servicemember was afforded proper procedural due process regarding witness availability at his discharge hearing. The Court required the lower court to examine whether the petitioner had made adequate attempts to obtain witnesses and whether the Air Force properly responded to requests for witness production for cross-examination.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 witnesses 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1969)…ous fringe benefits accorded all servicemen.22 The Supreme Court’s decisions in Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Vitarelli v. Sea-ton, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959), and Williams v. Zuckert, 372 U.S. 765, 83 S.Ct. 1102, 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963),23 are cited by Plaintiff in support of his position. The court finds these cases to be inapposite for two reasons. First, none discussed, or for aught that appears even considered, the question of the district…
-
Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1969)…does not make the request, he cannot later complain of the fact that he has been denied the right of confrontation of adverse witnesses and the right of cross-examination. See Williams v. Zuckert, 371 U.S. 531, 83 S.Ct. 403, 9 L.Ed.2d 486 (1963) and 372 U.S. 765, 83 S.Ct. 1102, 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963); Begendorf v. United States, 340 F. 2d 362, 169 Ct.Cl. 293 (1965); McTiernan v. Gronouski, 2 Cir., 1964, 337 F. 2d 31, 37. However, as pointed out above, this is entirely different to the objection of claimant…
-
Polcover v. Secretary OF the Treasury, 477 F.2d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 1973)…to cross-examine witnesses who appear and testify,” and 5 C.F.R. § 771.211(b) requires an agency normally to render its employees available as witnesses when so requested, no constitutional or regulatory violation existed here. Williams v. Zuckert, 372 U.S. 765, 83 S.Ct. 1102, 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963), is controlling in establishing that (a) the biirden is on the petitioner desiring the presence of witnesses at his hearing to make a timely and sufficient attempt to obtain their presence, or to show that under…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Zuckert, 371 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1963)