ILNews

COA: Casinos can't ban card counters

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana casino cannot stop someone from playing regulated blackjack simply because he counts cards, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In its unanimous decision in Thomas P. Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, L.P., No. 49A02-0903-CV-259, a three-judge panel ruled in favor of Thomas P. Donovan, who challenged a Southern Indiana riverboat casino's decision to ban him from playing blackjack there.

A self-taught "advantage player" who uses blackjack to supplement his income, Thomas Donovan played at the Grand Victoria casino in Rising Sun for about three months in 2006 under an agreement with a floor supervisor, saying that he maintain a $25 per-hand betting limit. But when a new supervisor took over, Donovan was told he was no longer welcome to play blackjack there. The 50-year-old, semi-retired computer programmer sued the casino in Marion Superior Court; the casino won earlier this year when Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly granted it summary judgment.

Donovan appealed, arguing that he never attempted to hide his card counting and that the practice isn't cheating or prohibited by gaming law or administrative rule. Casino attorneys argued that Grand Victoria is "a private amusement" that doesn't have to accept anyone who visits; attorneys cited a 1994 appeals court decision backing a shopping mall's right to bar a customer and said casinos have the same right.

But the appellate panel disagreed, saying that precedent from Wilhoite v. Melvin Simon & Associates Inc., 640 N.E.2d 382, 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), doesn't apply in this case because of the Indiana Gaming Commission's statutory rule-making authority of casinos.

Siding with Donovan's points, the court granted summary judgment on his request for declaratory judgment to the effect that Grand Victoria may not exclude him from playing blackjack because of his card counting. The judges relied on a New Jersey case, Uston v. Resorts Int'l Hotel Inc., 89 N.J. 163, 445 A.2d 370 (1982), involving a card counter who was also expelled from a casino there.

The General Assembly gave the Indiana Gaming Commission rule-making authority to balance the respective rights of private property owners and the patron, the court wrote, but it didn't outright ban the card-counting practice.

"Grand Victoria may not simply take refuge in the common law right of exclusion, inasmuch as is the public policy of this State that gambling is subject to 'strict regulation'... and the Commission has been given the exclusive authority to set rules of riverboat casino games," the court wrote. "The Commission did not enact a provision against card counting and Grand Victoria did not seek a prohibition by rule amendment. No law, regulation, or duly promulgated rule advised Donovan that the skill of card counting was prohibited."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT