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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT