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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT