TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. & Louise Liford, d/b/a Thirsty Turtle v. City of Indianapolis, et al.

An Indianapolis smoking ordinance contained an exception allowing smoking in “satellite” facilities for off-track gambling. The court ruled that the exception was unconstitutional because it treated satellite facilities differently from bars and restaurants without a sufficient reason. The court struck down the exception for satellite facilities but allowed the remainder of the ordinance to continue in effect.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. & Louise Liford, d/b/a Thirsty Turtle v. City of Indianapolis, et al., Opinion 49A02-1407-MI-519 (2015).

  • United States
  • Jun 24, 2015
  • Court of Appeals of Indiana

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Louise Liford d/b/a Thirsty Turtle
  • Whistle Stop Inn, Inc.

Defendant

  • City of Indianapolis
  • Indianapolis City-County Council
  • Mayor Greg Ballard

Third Party

  • Hoosier Park, LLC

Legislation Cited

Indiana Constitution Privilege and Immunities Clause

Indianapolis No-Smoking Ordinance (Indianapolis City-County Ordinance Number 12)

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by