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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT