Competitor lacks standing for judicial review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for judicial review from a liquor wholesaler who challenged the issuance of a wine and liquor permit to a competitor because the wholesaler lacked standing, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In National Wine & Spirits v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, et al., No. 49A02-1006-PL-612, National Wine sought permission from the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission to be granted status as an intervening remonstrator regarding the issuance of liquor and wine wholesaler permits to Southern Wine & Spirits of America. National Wine worried it would suffer immediate harm to its supplier contracts because it claimed Southern Wine was engaged in anticompetitive coordination in other parts of the country.

The IATC denied National Wine’s request and eventually voted to grant Southern Wine’s permit applications. National Wine then filed a verified petition for judicial review of the issuance of the permits, which the Marion Superior Court dismissed for lack of standing.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with National Wine’s argument that it should have standing to challenge because it was aggrieved and adversely affected by the order and that due process concerns support its ability to challenge the order. National Wine didn’t meet either requirement under subsections (b)(2)(A) and (B) of Indiana Code Section 4-21.5-5-3(b), which defines the standing requirement for judicial review.

The judges found National Wine’s claims that its permits and the enjoyment of those permits is property for purposes of the due process clause to be flawed. National Wine really is just seeking to prevent a competitor from being granted a permit, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

Also, the judges pointed out that National Wine has recourse to the IATC should its worries regarding Southern Wine’s trade practices actually come to fruition. If the ITAC determines that a company with a permit is engaged in illegal trade practices, it has the power to revoke or refuse to renew the permits issued.


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 is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.