ILNews

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.

 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT