Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission v. Spirited Sales, LLC
2017 Ind. LEXIS 556
| Ind. | 2017

Background

  • Spirited Sales, LLC (Delaware LLC, wholly owned by E.F. Transit, Inc. (EFT)) applied in 2013 for an Indiana liquor wholesaler’s permit; Monarch Beverage Co., an Indiana company wholly owned (via five shareholders) by the same ultimate owners, holds a beer and wine wholesaler’s permit.
  • The Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission held a hearing and denied Spirited’s application, finding EFT and Monarch effectively operated as the same business and that granting Spirited would create prohibited overlapping interests under Title 7.1.
  • Spirited sought judicial review in Marion Superior Court; the trial court set aside the Commission’s denial as arbitrary and capricious (relying on prior Commission decisions recognizing corporate separateness) and ordered the permit issued.
  • The Commission appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which accepted the case on expedited transfer and considered whether the denial conformed to Title 7.1, whether it was arbitrary or capricious, and whether constitutional or political-ground claims justified affirming the trial court.
  • The Supreme Court held the statutory language clear: a permit holder is the entity to whom a permit is issued, but the statutory term “interest” is broad and prohibits indirect interests; applying that reading to the tangled ownership/operations here supported denial.
  • The Court further held the Commission’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious, was not based on political grounds, and Spirited’s constitutional claims (Equal Privileges & Immunities and Due Process) failed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Spirited may obtain a liquor wholesaler’s permit given overlapping ownership with a beer wholesaler Spirited: statute does not compel denial; corporate separateness precedent allows permit Commission: Title 7.1 prohibits persons with an interest in a beer wholesaler from having an interest in a liquor wholesaler; “interest” includes indirect interests Denial affirmed: statute is unambiguous; “holder” = permit recipient, “interest” is broad and bars Spirited given EFT/Monarch ties
Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously by denying the permit Spirited: Commission departed from prior practice without explanation; decision therefore arbitrary Commission: denial followed clear statutory requirements and was supported by substantial evidence Denial not arbitrary or capricious; substantial evidence supports the Commission’s statutory application
Whether the denial was based on impermissible political grounds Spirited: trial court found communications and favoritism indicating political motivation Commission: “political grounds” limited to patronage/political affiliation; record fails to show such motive Court finds no record support that political grounds motivated the denial
Whether constitutional claims (Equal Privileges & Immunities; Due Process) justify relief Spirited: Commission treated similarly situated parties differently and process was unfair Commission: entities were not similarly situated; no property interest in a permit; process afforded was adequate Claims rejected: no Equal Privileges & Immunities violation and no cognizable property interest for due process challenge

Key Cases Cited

  • Monarch Beverage Co. v. Cook, 48 N.E.3d 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (context on Indiana’s three-tier alcohol regulation and prior challenges)
  • West v. Office of Indiana Sec'y of State, 54 N.E.3d 349 (Ind. 2016) (start with plain statutory language; deference to agencies)
  • Ind. Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State ex rel. Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 695 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. 1998) (agency expertise in alcohol regulation)
  • Jay Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. Jay Sch. Corp., 55 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. 2016) (defer to agency factual findings; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
  • Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Comm’n, 758 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. 2001) (prior inconsistent agency decisions do not render a later statutory enforcement arbitrary if supported by evidence)
  • A.B. v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 2011) (definition of arbitrary and capricious agency action)
  • Breitweiser v. Ind. Office of Envtl. Adjudication, 810 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2004) (reasonable basis required to avoid arbitrary/capricious finding)
  • Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process framework for deprivation of liberty/property interests)
  • Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest requires more than unilateral expectation)
  • Commissioner of Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Vawter, 45 N.E.3d 1200 (Ind. 2015) (state-law predicate required for property interests)
  • State ex rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. Superior Court of Marion Cty., 122 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. 1954) (no inherent property right in permits)
Read the full case