The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 14, 2008:

• Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt (Garwood, Smith, DeMoss, JJ; opinion by Smith, J.). The plaintiff, a Texas-based real estate concern involved in listing properties and timeshares on the internet but that did not carry real estate licenses in every state where its listed properties were located, had sued in Texas federal district court officials of the California and Florida regulatory bodies over licensing of real estate agents, seeking an injunction of those states’ licensure requirements. The district court had denied the states’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and issued the injunction sought by the plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction. First, the Fifth Circuit rejected the district court’s rationale that it had general personal jurisdiction on the basis that it had jurisdiction over California and Florida officials because those states were members of the federal union, which had an ubiquitous presence in Texas. The Fifth Circuit held that this would provide for a limitless universal jurisdiction for which there is no support. The Fifth Circuit then held that there was no specific personal jurisdiction on the basis of cease-and-desist letters sent by the California and Florida officials to the plaintiff, because those letters were not attempts by those officials to avail themselves of the legal protections of the forum state.
• U.S. v. Jesco Construction Corp. (DeMoss, Dennis, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Dennis, J.). This suit is an interpleader action filed by the U.S. government in relation to $230,000 owed to the defendant construction company by the Corps of Engineers for work on a contract to install pilings along the Mississippi River downriver from Baton Rouge. Two claims had been made on the proceeds, one a perfected security interest by GE Capital Corporation; and one by U.S. Fire Insurance, the plaintiff’s surety, on an equitable subrogation claim arising from an unrelated construction project by the plaintiff in South Carolina. The district court ruled that G.E.’s claim had priority over that of the surety; the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that Louisiana law applied to the claim, and that under Louisiana law the perfected Louisiana claim took precedence while the common law subrogation claim would not be recognized.
• North Texas Specialty Physicians v. Federal Trade Commission (King, Wiener, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Owen, J.). The FTC found certain of the petitioner’s activities constituted horizontal price fixing unrelated to any procompetitive efficiencies. The Fifth Circuit upheld this finding, holding that the FTC’s examination was adequate, and that substantial evidence supported its findings. The Fifth Circuit did find, however, that the FTC’s remedial order was overly broad in one respect, in that the FTC had ordered the petitioner to cease from dealing or refusing to deal with any payor, which the Court held was internally inconsistent.
• Cruz v. Louisiana (Higginbotham, Benavides, Dennis, JJ.; opinion by Higginbotham, J.). The plaintiff filed a sexual discrimination claim against the state of Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections in federal court, which the court held was not timely served on defendants under Rule 4(m), and dismissed; the plaintiff then filed an identical claim in Louisiana state court, which, upon removal to federal court, was found to have been prescribed on the basis that the untimely served first suit had not interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that Louisiana law permits the dismissal of lawsuits brought against state officials for failure to timely serve, and that such a dismissal will prevent the interruption of prescription.
• Skinner v. Quarterman (Smith, Wiener, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Smith, J.). Denying in part and granting in part application for Certificate of Appealability by petitioner convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend and her two mentally retarded sons. The Fifth Circuit held that the petitioner did not make the requisite showing of ineffective assistance of counsel from his attorney’s failure to order DNA testing of crime scene materials not tested by the state, because such failure to test represented a strategic decision to support the defense that the state conducted a shoddy investigation such that the jurors should have reasonable doubt; that petitioner’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to elicit additional impeachment testimony regarding the petitioner’s confession, where counsel had extensively cross-examined the witness to whom the confession had been made and had elicited other impeaching testimony; that trial counsel’s failure to present evidence of the petitioner’s codeine allergy, which would have countered the state’s theory that petitioner had a high tolerance to codeine and could have functioned sufficiently to commit the murders while under the influence of codeine, was not ineffective assistance because it would have only provided marginal support for the petitioner’s defense while not addressing the primary weakness in that defense; but that there was no justification presented for trial counsel’s failure to introduce a blood spatter report that could possibly have inculpated another person, and that reasonable jurists could find it debatable whether this failure caused prejudice, therefore justifying a COA.