Sidebars: Restaurant's sandwiches fail to impress diners

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SidebarsSometimes you are just disappointed. While our lunch at a staple Martinsville restaurant wasn’t particularly bad, it certainly wasn’t one I’d recommend you try and recreate anytime soon.

At this particular lunch I was joined by James Bell of Bingham Greenebaum Doll. Jenny had a conflicting obligation so she wasn’t a part of this affair. There is a common witness in a couple of cases James, Jenny and I share, and on this date, James and I traveled to Martinsville to depose him. Considering the witness is a forensic pathologist, I hope we made a lively impression upon him.

The day before our visit we, of course, discussed lunch options. James heard of a place called Forkey’s that he wanted to try and, as I hadn’t heard of it, I was game. At the conclusion of our deposition we asked the doctor, a Martinsville resident, about a good lunch spot. He suggested Forkey’s so it seemed like that was the place to go. Well, considering what this doctor does for a living, I guess anything seems appetizing sometimes.

Maybe that was the problem. James and I (more James than me) just spent our entire morning examining the good doctor over some rather grisly autopsy photos. I’m not ashamed to admit though, and I think James would concur, we still managed to work up quite an appetite despite the subject matter of our morning. Whether the topic subconsciously affected the perception of this meal, I really don’t know. I suppose anything is possible, but I seriously doubt it in this case.

The place is a basic, reasonably priced restaurant. From the décor, it’s been there for years. The paneling reminded me of someone’s basement I visited as a child growing up in the ’60s and ’70s. According to their website, however, the place first opened in 1985. Breakfast options abound but we each ordered lunch. While tempted by a meatloaf sandwich, I decided upon the smothered chicken breast, comprised of a grilled chicken breast topped with assorted grilled vegetables. I opted for onion rings as a side, something I rarely order but they seemed a like a nice complement on this date.

James ordered a BLT with no mayo. It arrived with mayo, but James managed to eat it anyway and survive. He described the sandwich as “spot on,” but from my casual observation of his plate it didn’t appear as anything but a common BLT. Our lunch was cut short, at least James’ portion (I stayed to finish mine!), as he received a phone call about his daughter going to the ER with a hurt finger. I checked with James and she is now, thankfully, fine.

The meals were ok. Nothing particularly bad about them but nothing particularly good either. The onion rings weren’t too bad but those are like pizza, cake and sex. Even when they’re bad, they’re still pretty good. The best way to sum these meals up is that they were both easily forgettable and that’s an impression you don’t want to make when running a restaurant. As far as Martinsville lunch options go, my recommendation is to choose elsewhere.•

Forkey’s Restaurant, 539 East Morgan St., Martinsville, IN 46151. 765-342-3033.

Fred Vaiana and Jennifer M. Lukemeyer practice at Voyles Zahn & Paul in Indianapolis, focusing in criminal defense. Vaiana is a 1992 graduate of the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Lukemeyer earned her J.D. from Southern Methodist University in 1994 and is active in the Indianapolis Bar Association, Indianapolis Inn of Courts and the Teen Court Program. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the authors.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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?

  2. 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"

  3. 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?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."