ILNews

Justices to hear card-counting case Wednesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases Wednesday, including whether a casino can ban someone who counts cards.

Thomas P. Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino & Resort after the casino banned him from playing regulated blackjack because he counts cards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the casino, but Donovan argued he never attempted to hide the card counting and it's not cheating or prohibited by gaming law or administrative rules. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Indiana Gaming Commission hadn't enacted a provision that bans card counting, and Grand Victoria can't simply take refuge in the common law right of exclusion.

Arguments begin at 9 a.m. in Thomas P. Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, No. 49S02-1003-CV-124.

The high court will also hear a defamation suit and an appeal of battery and strangulation convictions. Arguments begin at 9:45 a.m. in Christine Dugan v. Mittal Steel, USA Inc., et al., No. 45S05-1002-CV-121. Christine Dugan sued her employer Mittal Steel and employee Jay Komorowski for defamation after she was fired following an investigation into an alleged theft ring in her department. She was reinstated after an arbitrator found there wasn't enough evidence to support that she defrauded Mittal. She then filed her suit.

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Mittal and Jay Komorowski as to the statements described in Paragraph 6 of Dugan's complaint for defamation and reversed summary judgment in favor of Mittal and Komorowski as to Paragraph 7 of Dugan's complaint. The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings on that portion of her defamation claim because Mittal failed to establish as a matter of law that the statement is protected by the common interest privilege.

At 10:30 a.m. the justices will hear Giavonni J. Williams v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0908-CR-363. Giavonni Williams appeals his convictions of strangulation and battery and the denial of his motion to separate witnesses. On March 17, the high court determined Williams' case warrants oral argument on whether the state adequately overcame the presumption of prejudice stemming from the denial of the motion for separation of witnesses.

All arguments will be webcast live at https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/ .

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT