Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. B & T Distributors, Inc., No. 20492

Docket NºNo. 20492
Citation141 Ind.App. 343, 228 N.E.2d 35
Case DateJuly 11, 1967
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 35

228 N.E.2d 35
141 Ind.App. 343
The INDIANA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Appellant,
v.
B & T DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellees.
No. 20492.
Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.
July 11, 1967.

Page 36

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Frank M. Maley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indiana, for appellant.

William C. Burns, Schultz, Ewan & Burns, Lafayette, John G. Tinder, Indianapolis, James W. Bradford, Buck & Bradford, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellees.

COOPER, Judge.

This is an attempted appeal by the Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission from an adverse ruling and [141 Ind.App. 344] judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Marion County in General Term.

It appears from the record now before us, that the Alcoholic Beverage Commission denied and refused to issue to B & T Distributors a beer wholesalers permit. Thereafter, the B & T Distributors filed an 'appeal petition' in the Superior Court of Marion County alleging that the permit was denied upon capricious, arbitrary or political grtounds, pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Annotated, Sec. 12--445, (1956) Repl.). The record further shows that after considering and reviewing the proceedings of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, the Superior Court of Marion County in General Term issued its mandatory injunction directing the commission to issue the said permit on the 30th day of June, 1965, and thereafter on the 1st day of July, 1965, the Appellant Alcoholic Beverage Commission filed a motion for a new trial.

This cause is now before us upon the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss this attempted appeal or review for the reason that the transcript of the record was not filed within the time provided for by Rule 2--2. The record shows the transcript of the record was filed with the Clerk of this Court on March 7, 1967, and also reveals the Appellant applied for and secured an extension of time on December 3, 1965, in which to file the transcript of the record and assignment of errors.

It is well established by law in this State that there is no appeal, in the usual sense, from a ruling, order, or decision of an administrative body, but rather, a judicial review is contemplated. We judicially know the Alcoholic Beverage Commission is an administrative agency or body. Our Supreme Court, in the case of Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940) 217 Ind. 93, 105, 26 N.E.2d 399, stated:

'Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an appeal from an administrative agency. It is correct to say that the orders of an administrative body are subject to judicial review; and that they must be so to meet the requirements of due process. Such a review is necessary to the

Page 37

end that there may be an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction[141 Ind.App. 345] that the agency has acted within the scope of its powers. * * *'

See also: State Board of Tax Commissioners et al. v. Indpls. Lodge #17, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. (1964) 245 Ind. 614, 625, 200 N.E.2d 221; State ex rel. Harris et al. v. Superior Court of Marion County et al (1964) 245 Ind. 339, 356, 197 N.E.2d 634; Mills v. City...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, No. 20675
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 19, 1968
    ...of law. As was stated by this court in the case of Indiana Alcoholic Bev. Comm'n v. B. and T. Distribs., Inc. (1967), Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 35: 'It is well established by law in this State that there is no appeal in the usual sense, from a ruling, order, or decision of an administrative body......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Biltz, No. 20745
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 27, 1968
    ...stated the law applicable in the recent case of Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. B & T Distributors, Inc., (1967) Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 35, wherein this Court 'Under Rule 2--2, and the case law applicable to such situations as now confronts us, we are compelled to agree with the Appe......
  • Kopfe v. Dist. of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage, No. 11374.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • December 30, 1977
    ...Co. v. F. C. C., 69 App.D.C. 1, 3, 98 F.2d 282, 284 n. 2 (1938); Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. B & T Distributors, Inc., 141 Ind.App. 343, 228 N.E.2d 35, 36-37 (1967); Southern Ry. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 195 S.C. 247, 10 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1940). It "is similar in nature to an e......
  • Indiana Bd. of Beauty Culturist Examiners v. Royal Beauty Academy, Inc., No. 20722
    • United States
    • February 7, 1968
    ...can be no basis for asking for a new trial * * *' See also: Indiana Alcoholic Bev. Comm. v. B & T Distributors, Inc. (1967), Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 35. As the transcript and assignment of errors were not filed with the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts within ninety days from the date......
4 cases
  • Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, No. 20675
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 19, 1968
    ...of law. As was stated by this court in the case of Indiana Alcoholic Bev. Comm'n v. B. and T. Distribs., Inc. (1967), Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 35: 'It is well established by law in this State that there is no appeal in the usual sense, from a ruling, order, or decision of an administrative body......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Biltz, No. 20745
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 27, 1968
    ...stated the law applicable in the recent case of Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. B & T Distributors, Inc., (1967) Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 35, wherein this Court 'Under Rule 2--2, and the case law applicable to such situations as now confronts us, we are compelled to agree with the Appe......
  • Kopfe v. Dist. of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage, No. 11374.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • December 30, 1977
    ...Co. v. F. C. C., 69 App.D.C. 1, 3, 98 F.2d 282, 284 n. 2 (1938); Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. B & T Distributors, Inc., 141 Ind.App. 343, 228 N.E.2d 35, 36-37 (1967); Southern Ry. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 195 S.C. 247, 10 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1940). It "is similar in nature to an e......
  • Indiana Bd. of Beauty Culturist Examiners v. Royal Beauty Academy, Inc., No. 20722
    • United States
    • February 7, 1968
    ...can be no basis for asking for a new trial * * *' See also: Indiana Alcoholic Bev. Comm. v. B & T Distributors, Inc. (1967), Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 35. As the transcript and assignment of errors were not filed with the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts within ninety days from the date......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT