Convenience stores sue to be able to sell cold beer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association has filed a complaint in federal court challenging the law governing the sale of cold beer. Convenience stores, pharmacies and groceries are unable to sell cold beer under current law.

Indiana is the only state that regulates beer sales based on temperature, I.C. 7.1-5-10-11. The law was enacted in 1941 and only affects businesses that hold a beer dealer’s permit.

The association and three of its members – Ricker’s, Thorntons and Freedom Express – claim the law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by restricting convenience, grocery and pharmacy stores to selling beer only at room temperature.

The plaintiffs argue that the current law causes the IPCA member stores to lose a “significant amount of revenue,” including from the sale of craft beer, which often must be kept cold for quality control purposes.

“There is no logic with the current law that gives one class of retailer an exclusive right to sell cold beer,” said IPCA Executive Director Scot Imus. “Indiana’s alcohol laws have not always favored one retailer over another and, in fact, it was just in the last 50 years that liquor stores were granted the privilege of selling cold beer.”

The plaintiffs claim the law is confusing to customers and that the statutes and regulations have evolved into an “irrational and discriminatory regulatory regime that prevents certain retail permit holders – such as grocery and convenience stores – from selling refrigerated beer, while allowing the sales at package liquor stores,” according to the complaint.

The lawsuit contends that between 2007 and 2012, Indiana package liquor stores were 138 percent more likely to violate Indiana liquor laws than were licensed grocery stores (including convenience stores) and pharmacies. Bars and restaurants were 1,376 percent more likely to violate Indiana liquor law than grocery stores or pharmacies over that same time period.

The case, Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, et al. v. Alex Huskey, in his official capacity as chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, et al., 1:13-CV-784., was filed Tuesday morning in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Legislation was introduced in the Senate during the 2013 legislative session, but did not pass, that would have allowed the holder of a beer dealer’s permit issued to a grocery story or drug store to sell and deliver cold beer made by an Indiana microbrewery.

IPAC is a nonprofit trade association of more than 250 primarily small- and medium-sized, family-owned businesses that operate convenience stores and supply petroleum throughout Indiana. IPAC is represented by attorneys John Maley and Mark Crandley of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?