The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 11, 2008:

• Advocare Int’l LP v. Horizon Laboratories, Inc. (Higginbotham, Davis, Smith, JJ.; opinion by Higginbotham, J.). Affirming district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of insurer in claims by insured manufacturer of ephedra-containing dietary supplements, finding that policy’s exclusion for pharmaceuticals was unambiguous; finding that contract provisions between supplement manufacturer and ephedra supplier regarding supplier’s obligation to obtain adequate product liability insurance and to undertake DSVP certification were unambiguous; finding that contract’s choice-of-law provision did not apply to the question of prejudgment interest; affirming finding of fraud and denial of limitations defense on fraud claim due to applicability of discovery rule; affirming only one of two punitive damages awards based on same theory of liability, based on the Texas law “one satisfaction” rule.
• Buntion v. Quarterman (Barksdale, Stewart, Clement, JJ.; opinion by Stewart, J.). Vacating district court’s grant of condition habeas relief and denying habeas relief. Trial court judge made comment in open court during voir dire that he was “doing God’s work” to see that the defendant (subsequently convicted of capital murder of a peace officer) was executed. Fifth Circuit denied habeas relief, finding that , “under the highly deferential standard mandated by AEDPA,” it could not find the state habeas court’s decision to deny post-conviction relief was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, especially in light of the fact that the comments at issue did not implicate a pecuniary interest or procedural infirmity, but merely a personal animosity.
• Memorial Hermann Health Care Sys., Inc. v. Eurocopter Deutschland, GMBH (Wiener, Garza, Benavides, JJ.; opinion by Benavides, J.). Affirming district court’s refusal to carve out exception for post-sale negligence claims to Texas’s economic loss rule.
• State of Louisiana v. AAA Ins., et al. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Elrod, JJ.; opinion by Higginbotham, J.). Affirming district court’s denial of State’s motion to remand to state court case brought by Louisiana as an assignee to homeowners’ insurance benefits for Hurricane Katrina damages against various insurers, which case had been removed under the Class Action Fairness Act; Louisiana argued that CAFA was inapplicable and that Louisiana enjoyed sovereign immunity from involuntary removal to federal courts. Fifth Circuit held that the state does enjoy “some measure of insulation” from involuntary removal of suits brought by it, but not insofar as some of the named defendants were classes of private citizens of the state, such as were included here.