ILNews

State responds to complaint over cold beer sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has filed an answer to a lawsuit challenging the state’s laws and regulations that keep gas stations and grocery stores from selling cold beer.

In a complaint filed in May, the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, along with a handful of convenience stores and a consumer, charged the state’s regulations that prevent them from selling refrigerated beer violate their rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch is presiding over the case.

The Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; Alex Huskey, chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; and the state of Indiana were all named as defendants.

As part of their answer, the defendants denied the allegations and countered that they have not violated the plaintiffs’ rights secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States and the state of Indiana. Moreover, they asserted the plaintiffs’ claims under state and federal law are barred by sovereign immunity and the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The defendants conclude by asking the court to enter a judgment in their favor.

Currently, Indiana statute only allows package liquor stores to sell cold beer. Convenience store owners have tried several times to convince the Indiana General Assembly to rewrite state law, but the Legislature has resisted.

Liquor stores maintain their business will be devastated and minors will have easier access to alcohol if convenience stores are allowed to sell cold beer.





 
 

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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT