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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT