The Indiana Court of Appeals hits the road Tuesday and Wednesday to hear arguments at two universities involving a negligence
suit against a hospital and nurse and whether a casino can ban someone after he's been kicked out.
Judges L. Mark Bailey, Terry Crone, and Margret Robb will visit DePauw University in Greencastle Tuesday to hear arguments
in a Marion Superior negligence case against a nurse and Indiana University. In George A. Scott v. Malissa Elizabeth Retz,
R.N., and Indiana University, No. 49A05-0904-CV-192, George Scott sued Malissa Retz and Indiana University alleging negligence
and negligence by reason of respondeat superior and negligent retention. Scott, a Clarian Health Partners' Safety and
Security Investigator, was hit by an uncapped, used syringe while investigating missing narcotics at Indiana University Hospital
in Indianapolis.
Scott appeals the grant of Retz's and the university's motion for summary judgment; I.U. cross appeals the striking
of part of an affidavit that contained a statement alleged to be hearsay. Arguments begin at 10 a.m. in the Walden Inn
and Conference Center, 2 W. Seminary St., Greencastle.
On Wednesday, Judges L. Mark Bailey, James Kirsch and Edward Najam travel to Indiana University - Southeast in New Albany
to hear a suit in which Thomas Donovan sued Grand Victoria Casino & Resort after being excluded from the casino because
he was allegedly counting cards while playing blackjack. He appeals the summary judgment ruling for the casino, arguing that
Indiana law requires the casino to allow him to play blackjack there. The casino claims because it is a privately owned entity,
it can exclude any patron. Arguments for Thomas P. Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, No. 49A02-0903-CV-259,
begin at 1:30 p.m. in the Hoosier Room East, University Center North, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.