## Facts

- Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, L.P. operated a licensed Indiana riverboat casino offering blackjack under the Riverboat Gambling Act and Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC) regulations.
- Thomas P. Donovan, a frequent blackjack player, admitted he was an “advantage player” who counted cards to improve his odds.
- Grand Victoria barred Donovan from playing blackjack due to card counting while allowing other activities.
- After Donovan continued attempting to play blackjack, Grand Victoria excluded him from the casino premises.
- Donovan sued, asserting (1) breach of contract and (2) a request for declaratory relief that the casino lacked authority to exclude him from blackjack or from the premises based solely on card counting.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the casino on both claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed as to contract but reversed as to declaratory relief, reasoning the regulatory scheme limited the casino’s ability to exclude card counters.
- The Indiana Supreme Court accepted review and considered whether the statutory and regulatory framework displaced the casino’s common-law exclusion right.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s Riverboat Gambling Act and IGC regulations abrogated or limited a casino’s common-law right, as a private property owner, to exclude a patron for card counting.
2. Whether a casino may lawfully bar a patron from blackjack and the premises based on card counting where no statute expressly prohibits such exclusion.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the declaratory-judgment claim and reinstated summary judgment for Grand Victoria.
- The Court held the casino retained its common-law right to exclude patrons for lawful reasons, including card counting.
- The Court found neither the Riverboat Gambling Act nor IGC regulations expressly eliminated or restricted the casino’s common-law exclusion authority.
- The Court rejected the argument that a “comprehensive” regulatory scheme alone implies abrogation of common-law property rights.
- Donovan was not entitled to a declaration that he had a right to play blackjack or remain on the premises despite the casino’s exclusion decision.

## Legal Principles

- A private proprietor generally may exclude persons from private property for any reason that is not unlawful, subject to statutory limits (e.g., anti-discrimination laws).
- Common-law rights are not displaced by statute absent clear and unambiguous legislative intent to do so.
- Detailed regulation of an industry does not, by itself, eliminate residual common-law rights unless the statute or regulations clearly restrict them.
- Gaming statutes and regulations governing how games are conducted do not necessarily create an enforceable patron right to participate in a particular game or remain on the premises.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Indiana’s gaming statutes and regulations did not remove a casino’s common-law authority to exclude a patron for card counting, and it upheld summary judgment for the casino denying declaratory relief.


Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, L.P., 934 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. 2010)