Attached files

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

NEWS BULLETIN                                       RE: NOBLE ROMAN'S, INC.
                                                    1 Virginia Avenue, Suite 300
                                                         Indianapolis, IN  46204

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Investor Relations:  Paul Mobley, Chairman & CEO  317/634-3377
Press Information:  A. Scott Mobley, President 317/637-3377

       Court Grants Noble Roman's Summary Judgment Motions in Heyser Case

(Indianapolis, Indiana) - December 29, 2010 -- Noble Roman's, Inc. (OTC/BB:
NROM), the Indianapolis-based franchisor of Noble Roman's Pizza and Tuscano's
Italian Style Subs, today reported that, in an Order dated December 23, 2010 the
Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of
the company against all of the Plaintiffs in a long-running lawsuit. As a
result, the Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud against the company and certain of
its officers were determined to be without merit. The company's counterclaims
against the plaintiffs for breach of contract continue to be pending.

As previously reported by the company, it and certain officers and institutional
lenders were named Defendants in a lawsuit styled Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser
and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et. al v. Noble Roman's, Inc. et. al, filed in
Indiana state court in June 2008. The Plaintiffs are former franchisees of the
company's traditional location venue. Originally, there were approximately ten
groups of franchisee-Plaintiffs. Since the initiation of the lawsuit the Court
dismissed the claims against the institutional lenders. In addition, one group
of franchisee-Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its claims and the Court held
another group of franchisee-Plaintiffs in contempt and dismissed its claims with
prejudice.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase
franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of
material facts regarding the franchises. The Plaintiffs sought compensatory and
punitive damages. The Plaintiffs that remained in the case following the
voluntary and involuntary dismissals described above, claimed actual damages
aggregating $5.1 million. In addition, some claims included punitive damages,
court costs and/or prejudgment interest.

The company filed counter-claims for damages for breach of contract against all
of the Plaintiffs in the approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorneys'
fees, cost of collection and punitive damages in certain instances. The company
intends to prosecute the counter-claims and obtain and execute on any judgments
against all Defendants.

In addition to the above claims, one group of franchisee-Plaintiffs had asserted
a separate claim under the Indiana Franchise Act, as to which the Court's order
denied the company's motion for summary judgment. The Court determined that
there is a genuine issue of material fact underlying this claim. The company has
denied liability and will continue to vigorously prosecute its defenses against
this claim.

Paul Mobley, the company's Chairman, commented, "We obviously are pleased that
the Court agreed with our position, however, for more than two years we have had
to devote significant financial and personnel resources to defending ourselves
against these meritless allegations. This development removes a distraction and
enables us to intensify management's concentration on growing our
non-traditional venues and grocery store products."




The statements contained in this press release concerning the company's future
revenues, profitability, financial resources, market demand and product
development are forward-looking statements (as such term is defined in the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) relating to the company that
are based on the beliefs of the management of the company, as well as
assumptions and estimates made by and information currently available to the
company's management. The company's actual results in the future may differ
materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to risks
and uncertainties that exist in the company's operations and business
environment, including, but not limited to, competitive factors and pricing
pressures, the ultimate resolution of the pending litigation with certain former
traditional franchisees, non-renewal of franchise agreements, shifts in market
demand, general economic conditions and other factors including, but not limited
to, changes in demand for the company's products or franchises, the success or
failure of individual franchisees, the impact of competitors' actions, changes
in prices or supplies of food ingredients and labor and the company's ability to
comply with its debt obligations, as well as the factors discussed under "Risk
Factors" in the company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2009. Since the company has no previous experience selling its recently
introduced products to retail channels, there can be no assurance that grocers
will stock them or that customers will buy them. Should one or more of these
risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions or
estimates prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those
described herein as anticipated, believed, estimated, expected or intended.



                                     - END -