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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?