The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 30, 2008:

• Barnes v. Koppers, Inc. (Jones, C.J., Garwood, Jolly, JJ.; opinion by Jones, C.J.). Plaintiff sued defendants, whose facility produced treated railroad ties using creosote, creosote mixtures, and pentachlorophenol, for environmental contamination leading to the death of her mother from breast cancer. The defendants moved for summary judgment on ground that the statute of limitations had run, which the district court denied, and a jury subsequently found in favor of the plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit reversed on the limitations grounds, holding that, under Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations for tort claims, the district court was incorrect to rule that the time limit was not triggered until discovery of both the injury and its cause, that the statute only is triggered by discovery of the injury. The Fifth Circuit then held that Mississippi’s statute of limitations was not preempted, in this case, by CERCLA § 9658.
• Marlin v. Moody National Bank NA (Jones, C.J., Barksdale, Stewart, JJ.; opinion by Barksdale, J.). Vacating and remanding district court’s sua sponte award of sanctions against plaintiffs, which sanctions were set at $640,000 and were based in part on defendants’ attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions without notice and an opportunity to be heard; that the award of fees and expenses without a show-cause hearing was an additional abuse of discretion; and that the award of any sanctions other than non-monetary sanctions without a motion by a party was an additional abuse of discretion.
• Williams v. Wynne (Garza, Stewart, Owen, JJ.; opinion by Garza, J.). Affirming summary judgment by district court in favor of employer Secretary of the Air Force in suit brought by dual status employee in the Air Force and Air Force Reserves arising from his discharge for testing positive for cocaine use. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s Title VII claims on the basis of Title VII’s applicability to discharge decisions made arising from the dual status employee’s military status. The Fifth Circuit then held that decisions in this case by the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records did not display an abuse of discretion.