green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Irving Polcover v. Secretary of the Treasury
In Williams v. Zuckert, 372 U.S. 765 , 83 S.Ct. 1102 , 10 L.Ed.2d 130 (1963), the Supreme Court directed a remand 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 . or . whether proper and timely demand was made upon the Air Force so that it was required to produce such witnesses for cross-examination.” Id. at 765, 83 S.Ct. at 1102.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
David Goldwasser v. Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
The regulation in the present case provides : Both parties are entitled to produce witnesses but as the Commission is not authorized to subpoena witnesses the parties are required to make their own arrangements for the ajjpearanco of witnesses. 5 C.F.R. § 772.305 (c)(1) (1969). . 371 U.S. at 532 , 83 S.Ct., at 404 (emphasis added). . 372 U.S. at 765 , 83 S.Ct., at 1102. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force v. Leonard Gamage
In the second Williams case (Williams, v. Zuckert, 372 U.S. 765 , 83 S.Ct. 1102 , 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963)), the United States Supreme Court vacated a judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the District Court for a hearing to determine “whether the *159 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 prope…
cited
Cited "see"
Brooks v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review
See Williams v. Zuckert, 372 U.S. 765 , 83 S.Ct. 1102 , 10 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilbur J. Cohen, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare v. Pedro Perales
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.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mendez v. Macy
See Williams v. Zuckert, dismissing cert., 371 U.S. 531 , 83 S.Ct. 403 , 9 L.Ed.2d 486 (1963), vacated, 372 U.S. 765 , 83 S.Ct. 1102 , 10 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963). 2 Plaintiff asserts no other failure by the Commission to follow the procedures required by law, and the record discloses none.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
See also Giles v. State of Maryland, 372 U.S. 767 , 83 S.Ct. 1102 (1963); State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458 , 212 A.2d 101 (1965), certiorari granted 383 U.S. 941 , 86 S.Ct. 1194 , 16 L.Ed.2d 205 (1966). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mrs. Frances B. Chafin v. Dr. Harry D. Pratt
See, e. g., Williams v. Zuckert, 1963, 371 U.S. 531 , 83 S.Ct. 403 , 9 L.Ed.2d 486 , on rehearing, 372 U.S. 765 , 83 S.Ct. 1102 , 10 L.Ed.2d 136 ; Vitarelli v. Seaton, 1959, 359 U.S. 535 , 79 S.Ct. 986 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 ; Service v. Dulles, 1957, 354 U.S. 363 , 77 S.Ct. 1152 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 ; Brown v. Macy, 5 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 115 ; Hanifan v. United States, Ct.Cl., 1965, 354 F.2d 358 [Dec. 17, 1965]; Begendorf v. United States, 1965, 340 F.2d 362 , 169 Ct.Cl. 293 ; Kleinfelter v. United States, Ct.Cl., 1963, 318 F.2d 929 ; Shadrick v. United States, 1960, 151 Ct.Cl. 408 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GILES ET AL.
v.
MARYLAND.
v.
MARYLAND.
834.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 22, 1963.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
Hal Witt and Richard J. Scupi for appellants.
Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General of Maryland, Robert C. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, and Russell R. Reno, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
James H. Heller and Lawrence Speiser for the National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, in support of appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.