U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1964

In re Subpoena Served Upon Eugene M. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 8, 1964 · Per Curiam

336 F.2d 914; 118 U.S. App. D.C. 410 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Alan S. Rosenthal and Miss Kathryn H. Baldwin, Attys., Dept, of Justice, were on the pleadings for appellant., Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellant., Messrs. Harry S. Wender and Jules Fink, Washington, D. C., were on the pleadings for appellee Jack S. Machín., Before Washington, Danaher and Burger, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

Spanish International Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, International Panorama Tv, Inc., Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Comuni-Centre Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1st Cir. 1988)
Comuni-Centre Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1988)
Wste-Tv, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Puerto Rico Broadcasting, Inc., Invervenor (D.C. Cir. 1977)
National Association Of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1976)
National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1976)
Buckner Trucking, Inc. v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1973)
WCOV, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Jackson F. Lee and Cumberland Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, Atlantic Telecasting Corp., Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1967)
American Federation of Musicians and Its Local Union No. 174 v. Federal Communications Commission, Loyola University, Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Citizens Tv Protest Committee v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1965)
Wlil, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Alvin B. Corum, Jr., Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1965)
Citizens TV Protest Committee v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1965)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon 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

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

FURTHER 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

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.