Williams v. Zuckert
| Decision Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 133,133 |
| Citation | 10 L.Ed.2d 136,372 U.S. 765,83 S.Ct. 1102 |
| Parties | Daniel Alton WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Eugene M. ZUCKERT, Secretary of the Air Force, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In view of the factual contentions advanced in the petition for rehearing filed by the petitioner and in the respondent's reply thereto, the petition for rehearing is granted and the order heretofore entered, 371 U.S. 531, 83 S.Ct. 403, 9 L.Ed.2d 486, dismissing the writ of certiorari is vacated. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 296 F.2d 416, 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. U.S.
...736, 56 L.Ed. 1165 (1912); W. Gellhorn, C. Byse & P. Strauss, Administrative Law 680 (7th ed. 1979). Cf. Williams v. Zuckert, 372 U.S. 765, 83 S.Ct. 1102, 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963) (discharging agency may have some duty to assist when desired witnesses are employees of the agency). See also Ubi......
-
McNeill v. Butz
...79 S.Ct. at 973. See Greene v. McElroy, supra; Williams v. Zuckert, 371 U.S. 531, 83 S.Ct. 403, 9 L.Ed.2d 486, vacated 372 U.S. 765, 83 S.Ct. 1102, 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963). The Court's disposition of Vitarelli highlights the distinction between the government's unquestioned power to remove em......
-
Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury
...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 burden is on the petitioner desiring the presence of witnesses at ......
-
Carter v. Seamans
...1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 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......