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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT