ANDERSON — The public had the opportunity to see the legal process in action outside of a courthouse Thursday as the lobby of Reardon Auditorium became a temporary courtroom.

Anderson University hosted the Indiana Court of Appeals at the auditorium as the court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit between a southern Indiana casino and a woman who says she is a compulsive gambler.

About 70 people attended the session, which commemorated Constitution Day. On Sept. 17, 1787, delegates to the Philadelphia Convention signed the U.S. Constitution, the third article of which spells out the authority of the judicial branch of government.

The case before the three judges was Caesars Riverboat Casino LLC v. Genevieve M. Kephart. Attorney Terry Noffsinger, who represented Kephart, said it was a “novel case” because of the specific issues it addressed.

On March 18, 2006, Kephart, who lives in Nashville, Tenn., entered a riverboat casino in Harrison County, Ind., and lost $125,000 gambling in one evening. When the six counterchecks Kephart wrote to Caesars were returned for insufficient funds, Caesars sued to recover the amount owed. Kephart filed a counterclaim alleging that Caesars knew she suffered from a compulsive gambling disorder and that by inviting her to the riverboat and paying for her hotel, the casino unfairly enticed her to gamble.

Each side of the case fielded questions from the judges for 30 minutes. Gene Price, who represented Caesars, argued that the casino does adequate credit checks on customers and that casino staff does intervene when a customer appears to have a problem. The company also participates in the state-mandated casino voluntary exclusion list, to which Kephart had not signed on.

Noffsinger argued that because of the nature of the industry, casinos should be held more accountable.

“I just don’t believe that we should say, ‘OK, casinos, free rein,” he said.

Judges grilled attorneys from both sides and made no indication as to which side they favored.

Judge Terry Crone of St. Joseph County raised the idea that a casino is like every business in that it has a right to market to people who want what it sells.

“Every business attempts to target people who they think are susceptible to their products or services,” he said.

Then when Price gave his 10-minute rebuttal to Noffsinger’s argument, Crone seemed to be on the side of Kephart when he asked Price if the gambling industry were found to be dangerous then shouldn’t it be held to specific standards not applied to other businesses.

Price responded that he didn’t believe the gambling industry was dangerous.

After the hour-long hearing, the judges and attorneys fielded questions from the audience and explained their background and approach to the legal process.

Judge Carr Darden linked the process to the Constitution and encouraged those in the audience to participate in the legal process when asked to do so.