Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
WILLIAMS v. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, et al., 1963 — 372 U.S. 765 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
WILLIAMS v. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, et al.
372 U.S. 765·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WILLIAMS v. ZUCKERT, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, et al.
No. 133.
Decided April 22, 1963.
David I. Shapiro and Sidney Dickstein for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas, Stephen J. Poliak, Alan S. Rosenthal and David L. Rose for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
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.