A federal appeals court has overturned the embezzlement convictions of a former tribal manager and members of his family who allegedly stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Texas' first legal casino.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued a ruling Tuesday overturning on procedural grounds the conspiracy and theft convictions of Isidro Garza Jr.; his wife, Martha; and son, Timoteo, a former state representative.

Garza, the former manager of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, was given vast financial oversight of the tribe and the casino near Eagle Pass from 1996 until he was ousted in 2002. He, family members and other tribal employees — the so-called Kickapoo Seven — were indicted in 2004 for allegedly misappropriating funds from the lucrative casino operation for personal purchases and their political aspirations.

The appellate court, however, ruled that the 2007 trial of Garza, his wife and son was wrongly moved to Waco, creating undue hardship by forcing witnesses, family members and attorneys to travel more than 300 miles for the proceedings.

In a case from northeast Ohio's Summit County, the court ruled 5-2 Wednesday that owners may be sued both under the state's dog bite law and for more general negligence.

The decision is a victory for the family of a 12-year-old girl who was mauled by a dog and was hurt on the head.

A trial judge had allowed the girl's mother to sue the owners only under the dog bite statute, limiting the money award in the case. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $5,000 for the girl's medical bills and other costs.

The Supreme Court says the mother should also have been allowed to pursue a negligence claim and possible punitive damages.

A federal appeals court overturned Washington state's ban on voting by convicted felons Tuesday in a ruling that could extend ballots to prisoners in other states where studies showed racial bias in the criminal justice system.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the Washington law violates the federal Voting Rights Act because evidence showed discrimination against minorities at every level of the state's legal system: arrest, bail, prosecution and sentencing.

If the ruling survives, it will be binding in the circuit's other eight states, including California, which denies voting rights to 283,000 convicted felons in prison or on parole, according to a report from the nonprofit Sentencing Project.

About 114,000 are African Americans, who are disenfranchised at seven times the rate of the general population, the report said.

Among those in Washington state who commit crimes, "minorities are more likely than whites to be searched, arrested, detained and ultimately prosecuted," Judge A. Wallace Tashima said in the appeals court's majority opinion.

For example, he said, studies showed that African Americans in Washington were more than nine times as likely to be in prison as whites and 70 percent more likely to be searched, even though a study of one police department found that officers were more likely to find contraband when searching whites.

Findings were similar for Latinos and Native Americans, none of which could be explained by differences in crime rates, Tashima said.

The Voting Rights Act "demands that such racial discrimination not spread to the ballot box," he said.

Dissenting Judge Margaret McKeown said the court should have told a trial judge to reconsider the Washington law based on an amendment last year that made it easier for paroled felons to vote.

The American Trucking Associations filed its final response brief with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles seeking a summary judgment in its challenge to certain aspects of the Port of Los Angeles clean-truck concession requirements.

ATA charges that certain aspects of the port’s concession requirements violate the federal pre-emption provision that bars state and local entities from regulating motor carrier rates, routes and services.

The Port of Los Angeles is attempting to use its concession requirements to revoke a motor carrier’s authority to provide drayage service in the harbor, ATA stated. ATA also noted that the neighboring Port of Long Beach resolved this issue by replacing its clean-truck plan’s concession requirements with a registration agreement.

The U.S. District Court is scheduled to hear the ATA motion and the port’s cross motion for summary judgment on Jan. 11, with a decision expected shortly thereafter. A trial is scheduled for mid-March.

The state Supreme Court is considering changing Indiana's rules governing advertising by attorneys.

State Trial Court Services Director Tom Carusillo says many of the proposed changes are designed to clarify the rules' language or update the rules to fit modern communications technologies such as the Internet.

He says one proposed change would broaden a rule to allow more attorneys to advertise as specialists if they are certified in a particular field of law.

The Supreme Court's rules committee will be accepting comments on the proposed changes from judges, lawyers and the public until March 1.