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

• Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Valley Forge Ins. Group (Jolly, Clement, Owen, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from S.D. Tex.). Affirming summary judgment of district court in dismissing claims by paving subcontractor’s insurer against auto insurers of steel fabrication subcontractor and trucking company for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and settlement costs.  The plaintiff insurer’s claims arose from a lawsuit brought by a property owner for damage to a concrete slab caused when steel for the building to be constructed on the slab was placed on the slab before it had fully cured. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had incorrectly applied Texas’s “eight corners” doctrine in reviewing the motions for summary judgment, but affirmed on the alternative grounds that the auto insurers did not have a duty to defend and insure under the claims alleged by the owner.
• Burbank v. Cain (Jones, C.J., Davis, Garza, JJ.; opinion by Garza, J.) (appeal from E.D. La.). Affirming grant of habeas relief. The petitioner was convicted of two counts of murder. The state produced no physical evidence linking the petitioner to the double-shooting; the district court prevented the defense attorney at trial from eliciting testimony regarding a possible plea agreement reached by the sole identifying witness and regarding statements made by the witness to a third party that she had misidentified the defendant. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that these actions violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights and remanded for a harmless error determination. On remand, the state appeal court held that the error was harmless, and the state supreme court denied writs. The federal district court found the Sixth Amendment error to not be harmless and granted habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding that the error in not allowing cross-examination of the sole witness as to a possible plea agreement was not harmless error. In light of this holding, the Fifth Circuit did not turn to the harmless error question regarding the impeachment testimony as to the witness’s possible misidentification of the defendant/petitioner.
• James v. Texas Collin County (Jones, C.J., Garwood, Jolly, JJ.; opinion by Garwood, J.) (appeal from E.D. Tex.). Affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the county and various county officials in their official and individual capacities, dismissing suit brought by former county employee claiming violation of his First Amendment rights upon his dismissal from employment after losing his bid to become the Republican nominee for County Commissioner in the 2004 primary election. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in dismissing claims against county commissioners and the head of the county public works department in their individual capacities because there was no evidence that those defendants had any participation in or control over the termination of the plaintiff’s employment; and that the plaintiff failed to show the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim against the county.