Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Williams Vs. Zuckert

Williams vs Zuckert

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-22-1963
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100625

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
372 U.S. 765
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Williams

Respondent

Zuckert

Excerpt

williams v. zuckert - 372 u.s. 765 (1963) 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. page 372 u.s. 765, 766

Full Judgment

WILLIAMS v. ZUCKERT - 372 U.S. 765 (1963)
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.

Page 372 U.S. 765, 766



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial