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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT