IBJNews

Appellate court upholds state alcohol permit quotas

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of appellate court judges on Thursday ruled that Indiana’s system of issuing alcohol permits does not violate state law.

The decision is a blow to the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, which represents the state’s package liquor stores. It sought to stop the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission from issuing new permits until the judges could clarify state quota laws.

But Judge Carr Darden, writing for the majority, upheld a decision last year from a Marion Superior Court judge who denied a motion by the beverage retailers association for a temporary restraining order seeking to halt permits.

“Here, the IABR argues that without an injunction, its members’ ‘rights to fairly compete with other holders of lawfully obtained beer dealers’ permits will be harmed and diluted,’” Darden wrote. “We find no merit in this argument as we have found that the Commission’s interpretation of [state law] to be reasonable, and therefore its issuance of permits, is lawful.”

John Livengood, president and CEO of the beverage retailers association, said he didn't want to comment on the ruling until he had a chance to review it with lawyers.

The dispute arose from a legislative compromise in 2008 that rewrote beer permit rules and lowered the number of available alcohol permits based on population. The association agreed to the deal, provided that drugstores be classified as grocery stores when applying for an alcohol permit—in theory limiting competition.

But the commission has interpreted the law so that groceries and drugstores have separate quotas and, as a result, the association says permit numbers in some cities exceed what should be allowed.
 
Under the improper method for allowing separate quotas, the association argued, the commission is allowing up to twice the number of beer dealer permits under the quota limits.

The commission maintained, however, that since 1973, it has followed three separate quotas regardless of whether groceries or drugstores are lumped together. The quotas are for beer dealers, liquor dealers and package liquor stores.

Package liquor stores and drug stores are authorized to sell liquor and beer, while groceries are allowed to sell only beer and wine. The commission interprets the law as assigning permits to each quota—beer dealers, liquor dealers and package liquor stores.

“Because the Commission is the agency charged with the duty of enforcing [state law] by the promulgation of rules and regulations,” Darden wrote, “we defer to its interpretation of the statutes contained therein as long as the interpretations are reasonable.”

The commission’s interpretation of the law also is reasonable give the Legislature’s apparent intent to regulate and limit the sale of liquor to a greater extent than beer, Darden said.

Mark Massa, chairman of the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, could not be reached for comment.

Before the appellate court heard oral arguments Jan. 31, he said: “We thought the trial court got it right. It’s been the custom and practice for nearly 40 years to count permits in this manner.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Trying To Understand Your Argument
    So Dan, as a consumer, we should want to pay more to support the smaller retailer?
  • Likely Impact
    The little "Mom and Pop" liquor stores in smaller communities are the ones most likely to be affected by the way the law, and this interpretation, apply. They can't buy in enough volume to match big box grocery store and drug store pricing.

    The big liquor retailers (United Package, 21st Amendment, Crown) all saw this coming a long time ago. They were able to distinguish themselves by adding huge selections of wines, beers and liquors, along with trained, knowledgeable staff. A "one cowboy rodeo" store owner can't afford to do that.
  • Grocery stores
    The grocery stores selling liquor now have pharmacies which allows them to work around the law and sell liquor.
  • misinformation by the press
    Gorcery stores have been selling liquor for a couple of years now. How does that class them?

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT