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.
Stamatis SOUYOUTZIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M/V GEORGIOS K, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., et al., Defendants, United States Marshal, Appellee, 1976 — 525 F.2d 1197 · caselaw · US
General
Stamatis SOUYOUTZIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M/V GEORGIOS K, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., et al., Defendants, United States Marshal, Appellee
525 F.2d 1197·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1976
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
Stamatis SOUYOUTZIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M/V GEORGIOS K, her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., et al., Defendants, United States Marshal, Appellee.
No. 75-1924.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 16, 1976.
Hillord H. Hinson, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Jack Shepherd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Morton Hollander, Mark Mutterperl, Leonard Schaitmann, Appellate Section, Civ. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GODBOLD, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
Without prepayment of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1916, Souyoutzis filed a suit in rem for wages against the M/V Georgios K. Relying on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1921, the Marshal refused to execute the warrant of attachment without a deposit for costs to be incurred. The district court denied relief. We affirm for the reasons explicated in Araya v. McLelland, 5 Cir. 1976, 525 F.2d 1194.
Affirmed.