Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

336 F.2d 914

Docket No. 18288.

In re Zuckert

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-01-08

4 counsel of record

Relies on Jack S. MacHin v. Eugene M. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1964-01-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 1991 · most notably National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (1976), Spanish International Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1967)

35 federal appellate ·

1701964197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Alan S. Rosenthal and Miss Kathryn H. Baldwin, Attys., Dept, of Justice, were on the pleadings for appellant.

¶2Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellant.

¶3Messrs. Harry S. Wender and Jules Fink, Washington, D. C., were on the pleadings for appellee Jack S. Machín.

¶4Before Washington, Danaher and Burger, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for a stay pending appeal, appellee’s opposition thereto, appellee’s motion for summary affirmance, appellant’s opposition to appellee’s motion for summary affirmance, and appellee’s reply to appellant’s opposition to motion for summary affirmance, and it appearing that no claim has been made that state or military secrets are in danger of being improperly revealed, and it further appearing to the court that said motion for a stay is premature, and due consideration having been had thereon, it is

¶7ORDERED that appellant’s motion for a stay pending appeal is hereby denied; and it is

¶8FURTHER ORDERED that the District Court may proceed to examine the entire file in camera with directions that upon determination by the District Court of the particular non-privileged documents, if any, it proposes to disclose in whole or in part to plaintiff Machín as being “mechanics’ reports” within the meaning of the opinions rendered herein by this court, appellant shall be notified and given five (5) days within which to file objections thereto and if the objections, if any, are overruled in whole or in part the District Court shall stay its order for a period of five (5) days so as to permit a renewed application to this court in this case for such relief as appellant may be advised to seek; and it is

¶9FURTHER ORDERED that appel-lee’s motion for summary affirmance is hereby dismissed as moot.

/336/f2d/914 · .json · Public domain