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.

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
Download Document

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

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In addition, we note that Indiana Code chapter 4-31-5.5 does not explicitly mention any kind of “tobacco management plan.” Rather, the only mention relating to tobacco or smoke is contained in Indiana Code Section 4-31-5.5-4, which requires that a facility seeking a license provide “[a] description of the heating and air conditioning units, smoke removal equipment, and other climate control devices at the proposed satellite facility.” This requirement clearly does not amount to a requirement that a satellite facility provide a tobacco management plan. There is no indication that satellite facilities are even required to have smoke removal equipment, only to provide a description of the equipment they do have. This one statement about smoking in an entire chapter of the Indiana Code is far too attenuated to amount to an inherent distinction between satellite facilities and bars and restaurants. Therefore, we find that the exception for satellite facilities violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution because the disparate treatment is not reasonably related to the inherent differences between the divergently treated classes."