ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT