ILNews

High court takes alcohol wholesaler case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could decide whether beer and wine wholesalers can also be legally permitted to sell liquor in Indiana.

The justices granted transfer in the case of Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission v. Spirited Sales, LLC, 49S00-1611-PL-614, last week after Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced in late October that he would petition the high court to take the case.

Zoeller first became involved in 2014 when the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission denied Spirited Sales’ application for a liquor wholesale permit. Spirited Sales is an affiliate of Monarch Beverage Co. Inc., Indiana’s largest beer and wine wholesaler, and state law prohibits wine and beer wholesalers from also wholesaling liquor as a protection against monopolies.

Spirited Sales took the issue to court, and Zoeller argued that the state agency had correctly applied the law. But the Marion Superior Court overruled the ATC in August, so the agency was forced to grant a temporary permit to Spirited Sales in late September.

After the Indiana Court of Appeals denied the state’s motion for a stay, Zoeller sought an emergency stay from the Indiana Supreme Court and requested transfer at the same time.

Zoeller told Indiana Lawyer that he is pleased that the justices granted his motion for transfer and doing so will bring much needed clarity to an important legal issue that has significant policy implications for the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission.

All justices concurred with the Indiana Trial Rule 56A transfer to the high court except Mark Massa, who is not participating in the case.

The high court also granted transfer to the case of Thomas Pinner v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1611-CR-610, with all justices concurring. In that case, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a man’s motion to suppress a handgun found on him after officers questioned him in a movie theater lobby.

The divided Court of Appeals found that the officer had no reasonable suspicion to stop Thomas Pinner, whom officers approached and questioned in a movie theater after receiving a call that a man matching his description had a gun in his possession. 

Arguments in the Pinner case are scheduled for 9 a.m. Dec. 15.

The justices denied transfer in 26 other cases last week, including Lisa R. Harris v. State of Indiana, 83A01-1509-CR-1311, and State of Indiana v. Dejon Pitchford, 49A04-1512-CR-2173, two cases that were argued on petition to transfer last week.

In Harris’ case, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that Indiana State Police Trooper Mike Organ’s investigation into Harris’ car – an investigation that eventually found meth in her possession – went above and beyond the seat belt violation he had initially stopped her for.

In Pitchford, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision to suppress evidence of narcotics found on Dejon Pitchford’s body during a strip search following his arrest for misdemeanor battery.

All Indiana Supreme Court transfer decisions can be viewed here

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT