ILNews

Judges uphold IATC’s issuance of alcohol dealer permits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that an association comprised of retail package liquor stores isn’t entitled to injunctive relief preventing the state’s Alcohol and Tobacco Commission from issuing permits to stores in the same manner it has for the last 30 years.

In Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, et al., No.49A02-1002-PL-125, the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers sued the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, seeking to stop what it described as the unlawful practice of issuing excessive permits to dealers in violation of the quota system established by Title 7.1. The IABR claimed the issuance of beer dealer’s permits to holders of liquor dealer’s permits without counting the beer dealer’s permits against the quota limits established in Indiana Code Section 7.1-3-22-4 for those categories of permits violates Indiana law.

The trial court denied IABR’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It found there is no clear statutory guidance on the issue. The commission has followed its interpretation that the dealer statutes allow for permits to be issued which bundle together, in different formulations, the rights of different entities to sell different combinations of alcoholic beverages. The IATC has also counted those permits against different quotas in the same manner for many years. The court also found IABR won’t suffer irreparable harm and didn’t have a likelihood of success in a trial on the merits.

The Court of Appeals judges examined the various chapters and sections under Title 7.1 and found Article 3 to be ambiguous regarding the number of permits the commission may issue to dealers. They found reasonable the IATC’s interpretations of Article 3 allowing for three separate quotas to be applied to the various types of holders of dealer’s permits: a quota for those holding a package liquor store dealer’s permit, under which the holder may sell liquor and beer, which is counted only against the quota for package liquor store dealer’s permits; a quota for drug stores holding a liquor dealer’s permit, which is counted only against the quota for general liquor dealer’s permits under I. C. Section 7.1-3-22-4(b), even if they also hold a beer dealer’s permit issued pursuant to I. C. Section 7.1-3-10-6; and a quota for entities holding only a beer dealer’s permit issued pursuant to I. C. Section 7.1-3-22-4(a).  

IABR failed to show it had at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits at trial, wrote Judge Carr Darden. The IABR also failed to show that its members are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction isn’t issued.

“Here, the IABR argues that without an injunction, its members’ ‘rights to fairly compete with other holders of lawfully obtained beer dealer’s permits will be harmed and diluted,’” he wrote. “We find no merit in this argument as we have found that the Commission’s interpretation of Section 4 to be reasonable, and therefore its issuance of permits, is lawful. Also, the IABR has presented no evidence that any of its members have been denied permits due to the Commission’s interpretation.”

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT