ILNews

Justices rule in favor of casinos

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Supreme Court has given casinos a double win today, saying the businesses can ban card-counting and also that state statute doesn’t allow patrons to recover for losses they might incur because of problem gambling.

A pair of decisions came today in Caesars Riverboat Casino v. Genevieve M. Kephart, No. 31S01-0909-CV-403, and Thomas P. Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, No. 49S02-1003-CV-00124.

Justice Robert D. Rucker wrote the Kephart decision, which held no common law right exists for patrons to recover damages for casino gambling losses. This reverses a decision from Harrison Circuit Court. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan concurred while Justices Theodore Boehm concurred in result and Justice Brent Dickson dissented.

In Donovan, Justice Sullivan wrote for the four-justice majority. Justice Rucker didn’t participate in the decision. The court ruled that state riverboat gambling statutes don’t allow a common law right for card-counting patrons to gamble in the casinos and the establishments can exclude those individuals.

Justice Dickson, in another dissent, wrote that he agreed with the Court of Appeals that the casino shouldn’t be allowed to exclude the plaintiff from playing blackjack.

ADVERTISEMENT

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