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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT