21st Amendment, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission
84 N.E.3d 691
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Grapevine Cottage held a Type 115 grocery-store alcohol permit and sought renewal/transfer; 21st Amendment, a competing county permittee, remonstrated claiming Grapevine Cottage primarily sells alcohol and thus is ineligible.
- The Hamilton County Local Alcoholic Beverage Board approved the permit renewal/transfer; the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission (Commission) affirmed.
- 21st Amendment petitioned the Commission to intervene as a remonstrator asserting it was adversely affected and had a statutory right to abate a public nuisance; the Commission denied intervention.
- 21st Amendment filed a Verified Petition for Judicial Review under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA), asserting standing both as a statutorily authorized nuisance-abater and under AOPA’s catchall standing clause.
- The Commission moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing 21st Amendment lacked standing; the trial court granted dismissal but allowed 21st Amendment leave to pursue a separate nuisance action.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding AOPA standing via the nuisance statute did not apply because the alleged nuisance arises from permittee conduct, not from the Commission’s agency action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 21st Amendment has standing to seek judicial review under AOPA via a separate statute (I.C. §4-21.5-5-3(a)(3)) | 21st Amendment: its statutory right to abate public nuisances (I.C. §7.1-2-6-4) gives it "standing under a law applicable to the final agency action," so AOPA review is proper | Commission: the nuisance statute addresses permittee conduct, not the Commission’s final agency action; thus 21st Amendment lacks AOPA standing and must pursue a nuisance action instead | Court: affirmed dismissal — nuisance remedy does not confer AOPA standing because the alleged public nuisance stems from post-permit conduct, not the agency’s action |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Blackford Cnty. Area Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 907 N.E.2d 988 (Ind. 2009) (standing challenges under TR 12(B)(6) test legal sufficiency of complaint)
- Nat’l Wine & Spirits Corp. v. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 945 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (12(B)(6) dismissal reviewed de novo; pleadings taken as true)
- Ind. Ass’n of Beverage Retailers, Inc. v. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 836 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2005) (AOPA standing requirement parallels administrative "aggrieved or adversely affected" standard)
- Liberty Landowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Porter Cnty. Comm’rs, 913 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for 12(B)(6))
- Common Council of Mich. City v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Mich. City, 881 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standing is a question of law)
- Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 1990) (standing limits courts to real controversies)
- State ex rel. Cittadine v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 2003) (public standing doctrine applies only in extreme circumstances)