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.
ILNews
Justices rule in favor of casinos
Michael W. Hoskins
September 30, 2010
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!