Case Information
*1 I,,’ : I
‘: ‘, OFFICE OF THE A-i-i-ORNEY GENERAL ‘OF ‘TEXAS ~ ,’ ‘. AUSTIN ,i. ,. .i’
m-G* :‘. I. *2
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~urts nad cities aad to*vhs to prohl35.t t&a ssle of alcoholic beczrages within 300 feet OS any churah, public school or public hospital. ,Said.seotion' [253] of Article 666,.reads as follows: 'I
"The ,comis3ioners' court OS 'any oountg’in tic2 territory thereof outsiae iacor,corated cltlessnd :
tovas and the governing authorities of arq city or to-m vlthln the corpoPate.fitits of any suoh~ city or i.
toxn my proMbit the~sale o? alcobolio beverages by a.uy deale~.#~ere~the place oz" business of enysuch . . dealer is wlthin three huadrcd (300) feet'of .atiy,.,..~
.c~w?c~, public: SO~O&OP publio hospital;"'.the zzeasuzle- '. ,~'. nents to be along the.property lioes. ~of.the st&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~syatCsj is withInthe term, schuol.:or -ol;her~educatlo~l:.ins~tltuti~n, IZZI ArtZcle 37-12..of theE?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 then sale of.beer.~tifth%r.~300 fee,t,.,i,~ ~: .~, ~~ .~.is:z;.‘ ;, ,.~.:/. .,.~
: of ,a.public sohoo1.i: ;' .,,;" . ;.. .,..,,. ~.I;~ .’ ~,/ ‘,‘- .:
In OpinGkki “‘&3843 ~of this ~de&rtq&t,; ~&sing apon.the vallfiity of :Corp~us, Christ& ordlnanceregulati.kg hotis. ': .Soti the sale of beer,+~,found'the followiuglahguage,; :vhich -:,I i" .I we thluk supports our e~oncl,usio~, above, .t,o-v,it,:"' "It is elf&ehtarythat all cltj o&ii&ace& ., '~ whether the citles.have hoac ~sule or: special chktezk,~ must conform to the, Constitution and the State law.'~ .L' ,.
.Any city ordinance which is in conflict vith a state
statute c.overSng the ~sone subjeat is void,: .Oitg of, ,,.
Lubbock v. Soothplain Ea~dware’ Co., 1.11 S. 14. (2d), 383; CLtg of Wichita Falls v? Continental Oil Co,;,' 117 "L." Tex. ,1 5. w.~(2d) 596; Berryv. City of Ft. Worth, ~~!.~ I.24 S. %I. (2d),8t12; City oZ' Houston 9. Richter, ~157 ,~\' ,' 3. .W. 189; Cftg of Graham v. Se&!., 235 S. X. 663; Texas Jurisprndcnce 301, %c. 167 azd authoritles~ cit- ed therein. This general rule has beeo aell’esprizmsed
,j. *3 \. [1] , [1] ! ., _.~ Iionorable Shelby F. along, page 3 .~i.. .I’.::~~.~.:~z ;,:, ,~ “~ ~‘, ” ~~~ ” .~’ ~. .~.,‘,:::.~-;-,.,.-.. ,, ~,.Y: ‘, by Davidson,j Pr".j., speaking for the Courtof'Crin-
inal Appeals. of.Texds in Ex parte, Goldburg,~200 S.W. at page: 387.
"'There: are a few general propcsitiohs vhrch seem to be well understood as 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 ~1s regulated'by the state cannot be prohibited by .i tihe city either by express enactneat or by prohibl- tory regulatron. A'buslness regulatea by the state cazmot be regulated by, the cityi otherwise than by of power to such city in the charter,passed. grant by the'Leglslat+re for the purpose, ofsuch regula- tioni Nor can such regulation be, othetiw$se,than ;