The following published opinions were released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 22, 2008:

• Mapes v. Bishop (King, Higginbotham, Garza, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from M.D. La.) (sua sponte recalling mandate, withdrawing prior panel opinion, and issuing new panel opinion). One year following his acquittal on charges of soliciting a prostitute, the plaintiff brought a § 1983 claim for false arrest against various officials. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims on the basis that the one-year prescriptive period commenced at the time of his arrest. The Fifth Circuit held that the prescriptive (limitations) period on a Fourth Amendment false imprisonment claim commences to run at the time the plaintiff was detained pursuant to legal process, and vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded for determination of that date by the district court.
• U.S. v. Zavala (Smith, DeMoss, Stewart; opinion by DeMoss, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.). Reversing judgment of conviction of defendant on two counts of possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and two counts of conspiracy. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress testimony regarding a search of the defendant’s cell phone and number found in that search, because the cell phone search was without probably cause and was not equivalent to a license check such that it could be considered a search incident to arrest.
• North American Specialty Insurance Co. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (Smith, Wiener, Haynes, JJ.; opinion by Haynes, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.). Affirming summary judgment in favor of primary insurers against excess insurer arising from tort claims against a nursing home. The district court found that the various policy limits at issue could not be stacked for indemnity or defense cost purposes due to temporal separation of the underlying incidents alleged in the tort action, and that costs of defense could not be allocated to the CGL portions of the policies. The Fifth Circuit held that the alleged incidents were part of one continuous cause of action, and were not discrete incidents giving rise to discrete causes of action, such that the policy limits could not be stacked, or applied anew to each alleged incident; and that the underlying action was one solely for breach of professional standards of care, triggering only HPL coverage, and did not also involve separate negligence claims that would trigger CGL coverage.