ILNews

Justices to hear card-counting case Wednesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases Wednesday, including whether a casino can ban someone who counts cards.

Thomas P. Donovan sued the Grand Victoria Casino & Resort after the casino banned him from playing regulated blackjack because he counts cards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the casino, but Donovan argued he never attempted to hide the card counting and it's not cheating or prohibited by gaming law or administrative rules. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Indiana Gaming Commission hadn't enacted a provision that bans card counting, and Grand Victoria can't simply take refuge in the common law right of exclusion.

Arguments begin at 9 a.m. in Thomas P. Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, No. 49S02-1003-CV-124.

The high court will also hear a defamation suit and an appeal of battery and strangulation convictions. Arguments begin at 9:45 a.m. in Christine Dugan v. Mittal Steel, USA Inc., et al., No. 45S05-1002-CV-121. Christine Dugan sued her employer Mittal Steel and employee Jay Komorowski for defamation after she was fired following an investigation into an alleged theft ring in her department. She was reinstated after an arbitrator found there wasn't enough evidence to support that she defrauded Mittal. She then filed her suit.

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Mittal and Jay Komorowski as to the statements described in Paragraph 6 of Dugan's complaint for defamation and reversed summary judgment in favor of Mittal and Komorowski as to Paragraph 7 of Dugan's complaint. The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings on that portion of her defamation claim because Mittal failed to establish as a matter of law that the statement is protected by the common interest privilege.

At 10:30 a.m. the justices will hear Giavonni J. Williams v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0908-CR-363. Giavonni Williams appeals his convictions of strangulation and battery and the denial of his motion to separate witnesses. On March 17, the high court determined Williams' case warrants oral argument on whether the state adequately overcame the presumption of prejudice stemming from the denial of the motion for separation of witnesses.

All arguments will be webcast live at https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/ .

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT