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.
Property · MBE-tested
Hugo ZANELLI d/b/a Hugo Zanelli & Company, Petitioner, v. The FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, Respondent
524 F.2d 1000·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before GODBOLD, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
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
Hugo ZANELLI d/b/a Hugo Zanelli & Company, Petitioner, v. The FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 75-1550.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 1975.
Charles E. Orr, Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
Edward G. Gruis, Federal Maritime Commission, Douglas N. Jones, Francis C. Hurney, Secretary, Robert J. Wiggers, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent:
Before GODBOLD, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
We agree with the decision and order of the Federal Maritime Commission, that appellant, who is licensed as an independent ocean freight forwarder, cannot hold such a license if he acts as shipper, agent for a consignee, seller, financier, or has obtained a beneficial interest in the goods shipped. See 46 U.S.C. 801, 841b; 46 C.F.R. 510.21(1); and prior decisions of the Commission cited in the ALJ’s decision. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. FMC, 497 F.2d 1053 (C.A.8, 1974), is not to the contrary, and indeed appellant does not contend that it is. It involved a forwarder’s relationship to ITC, an interlocking company that performed services for shippers but acquired no beneficial interest in shipments.
The decision and order of the Commission are affirmed.
. 14 Shipping Regulatory Reports, (Pike & Fisher) 1256, adopting the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, a résumé of which is reported at p. 835 of the same volume.