I,,’
:
I
‘: ‘,
.
OFFICE OF THE A-i-i-ORNEY GENERAL ‘OF ‘TEXAS ~ ,’
‘. AUSTIN
,i.
m-G* ,. .i’
:‘. I.
Upon a careful exmination of the Texas Liquoor' Coo-
trol Act together with it3 amnkm~t, ve Pied that.Artlcle
665-253 a~tborlze~ coinlssio2ers~co~urtsnad cities aad to*vhs
to prohl35.tt&a ssle of alcoholic beczrages within 300 feet
OS any churah, public school or public hospital. ,Said.seotion'
253 of Article 666,.readsas follows:
'I
"The ,comis3ioners'court OS 'anyoountg’in tic2
territory thereof outsiae iacor,corated cltlessnd
tovas and the governing authoritiesof arq city or :
to-m vlthln the corpoPate.fititsof any suoh~city or i.
toxn my proMbit the~sale o? alcobolio beveragesby
a.uydeale~.#~ere~theplace oz"business of enysuch
.. dealer is wlthin three huadrcd (300) feet'of .atiy,.,..~
.c~w?c~, public:SO~O&OP publio hospital;"'.thezzeasuzle-
'.,~'.nents to be along the.propertylioes.~of.thest&e't'..:. ~. .--
,/: fronts and fion:~front' door to .fkont~door,
arid::%%;>..:;:::;.':
.,~
:',
.',~
.'~~.
.~
dipeot line ~~c~oss.interseotio,ne v&Fe. th~y:occti.;.? ~..~.
:."
WC deem it~unnecessmy to'deterv&e,ahether'a.school'.
of den~l~~& not connected ath.the public SChOOl~syatCsjis
withInthe term, schuol.:or -ol;her~educatlo~l:.ins~tltuti~n,
IZZI
ArtZcle 37-12..oftheE?q+aont C~ty'Code,~.beoause,uabe~,'krticle, .:~.~
~665;Section'25a,TexSS LiQuo??~COntrOl Act; ,the:'City,
Oi:8eaUnoutT:;
1:~'
.'.
was only authorieed.to:;prohiblt thensale of.beer.~tifth%r.~300
fee,t,.,i,~
~:
: of ,a.publicsohoo1.i: ;'.,,;" .~,
~~
.~.is:z;.‘
;,,.~.:/.
.,.~
. ;...,..,,.
~.I;~ .’
~,/
In OpinGkki “‘&3843 ~of this ~de&rtq&t,; ~&sing ‘,‘-
.:
apon.thevallfiityof :Corp~us,
Christ& ordlnanceregulati.kg hotis.':
.Soti
the sale of beer,+~,found'the followiuglahguage,; :vhich -:,I
we thluk supports our e~oncl,usio~,
above, .t,o-v,it,:"'
i" .I
"It is elf&ehtarythat all cltj o&ii&ace&
.,'~whether the citles.havehoac ~suleor: special chktezk,~
must conform to the,Constitutionand the State law.'~ .L' ,.
.Any city ordinance which is in conflict vith a state
statute c.overSngthe ~sone subjeat is void,:.Oitg of, ,,.
Lubbock v. SoothplainEa~dware’Co., 1.11S. 14.(2d),
383; CLtg of Wichita Falls v? ContinentalOil Co,;,' 117 "L."
Tex. 256, ,15. w.~(2d) 596; Berryv. City of Ft. Worth, ~~!.~
I.24S. %I.(2d),8t12; City oZ'Houston 9. Richter,~157 ,~\' ,'
3. .W. 189; Cftg of Graham v. Se&!.,235 S. X. 663; 30
Texas Jurisprndcnce301, %c. 167 azd authoritles~ cit-
ed therein. This general rule has beeo aell’esprizmsed
.
:
\. _.~ ~~~ ” .~’ .~.,‘,:::.~-;-,.,.-.. ~,.Y: ‘,
:
! .,
.I’.::~~.~.:~z
,~ ”
1
,
Shelby F. along,page 3
Iionorable
,j.
.~i.. ;,:, “~ ~‘, ,,
1 ~.
5
by Davidson,jPr".j.,speaking for the Courtof'Crin-
inal Appeals.of.Texds in Ex parte,Goldburg,~200S.W.
356, at page:387.
"'There:are a few general propcsitiohsvhrch
seem to be well understoodas the 1aw';'which may
be stated,ati follows: A business which1a'author-
iced by the state lav cannot be prohibited by city .
ordizauce direatly or inalrectly. A business,whlch
~1sregulated'bythe state cannot be prohibited by
.i
tihecity either by express enactneat or by prohibl-
tory regulatron. A'buslness regulatea by the state .
cazmot be regulated by,the cityi otherwise than by
grant of power to such city in the charter,passed.
by the'Leglslat+refor the purpose,ofsuch regula-
tioni Nor can such regulation be,othetiw$se,than
;