ILNews

COA to hear arguments at 2 universities

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT