An appeals court panel has reversed the murder conviction of a mother accused of driving her teenage son and his friends to a Southern California park where a 13-year-old rival gang member was stabbed to death.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal panel ruled 2-1 on Monday that jurors in the case of 33-year-old Eva Daley were given an "impermissibly ambiguous" jury instruction during the 2008 trial.

Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon wrote that case records don't show the jury based its verdict on a legally valid theory, so the conviction should be reversed.

Daley had been convicted of second-degree murder for the 2007 death of Jose Cano.

Prosecutors argued that Daley wanted revenge because Cano allegedly stabbed her son six months earlier.

Several environmental groups have asked a federal appeals court to disqualify a judge from a lawsuit over the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman overturned the temporary drilling ban in June and refused last month to withdraw from the case.

In a court filing Thursday, environmental groups supporting the moratorium asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Feldman from the case because of his investments in several oil and gas companies. Feldman says he learned he owned Exxon Mobil stock a day before he ruled and sold it several hours before he issued the decision.

Last month, a 5th Circuit panel rejected the government's bid to restore its six-month ban on issuing new permits for deep-water drilling and suspension of 33 existing drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.

California's high court on Monday upheld the state's 14-year-old law barring preferential treatment of women and minorities in public school admissions, government hiring and contracting.

In a 6-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected arguments from the city of San Francisco and Attorney General Jerry Brown that the law, known as Proposition 209, violates federal equality protections.

Opponents of the ban say it creates barriers for minorities and women that don't exist for other groups, such as veterans seeking preference.

The ruling written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar came in response to lawsuits filed by white contractors challenging San Francisco's affirmative action program, which was suspended in 2003.

"As the court recognized, Proposition 209 is a civil rights measure that protects everyone, regardless of background," said Sharon Browne, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the contractors. "Under Proposition 209, no one can be victimized by unfair government policies that discriminate or grant preferences based on sex or skin color."

If San Francisco wants to resurrect the program, the Supreme Court said it must show compelling evidence the city "purposefully or intentionally discriminated against" minority and women contractors and that such a law was the only way to fix the problem.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati overturned Donald Ayers' conviction of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and Roger Faulkenberry's conviction of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, saying the government didn't provide enough proof.

Remaining in place are Ayers' convictions of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and securities fraud, and Faulkenberry's convictions of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., securities fraud and wire fraud.

Ayers, 74, is serving 15 years in Coleman federal prison in Florida after his 2008 conviction with Faulkenberry and four other top executives from National Century Financial Enterprises, a Columbus health care financing company. Federal prosecutors compared the case to Enron.

Faulkenberry, 49, is serving 10 years in Gilmer federal prison in West Virginia after his 2008 conviction.

The tide of lawsuits unleashed by BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico breaks into an Idaho courtroom on Thursday, just as the company's rivals are counting the cost of a ban on offshore drilling.

Attorneys hoping to lead the legal fight against BP are set to descend on Boise, Idaho, to address a special judicial panel considering how to bring order to the hundreds of civil lawsuits spawned by the spill after a rig explosion on April 20.

"There will be more lawyers in that courtroom than exist in the entire city of Boise put together," Mark Lanier, a Houston-based lawyer who plans to attend the hearing, joked this week. "It's going to be a circus."

Seven U.S. federal judges will convene more than 2,000 miles from the Gulf's oil-smudged shores to consider which U.S. court, or courts, should oversee hundreds of spill-related suits by injured rig workers, fishermen, investors and property owners.

Potentially adding its name to the line of claimants, Royal Dutch Shell Plc idled seven rigs and took a $56 million charge related to the drilling ban on Thursday. Saying the ban would reduce its production by almost 3 million barrels this year, the company did not rule out reclaiming the cash from BP.

Shell, one of the biggest oil producers in the Gulf of Mexico, said it had idled rigs rather than move them elsewhere because the ban's six-month duration meant it was not profitable to redeploy them to other areas.