Dr. J. W. Edgar 

Commissioner of 

Texas Education 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Dr. Edgar: 

Education 

Agency 

Opinion No. ww-521 

Re: Whether the phrase 

"Junior Colleges located 

immediately adjacen~t to 

state boundary lines," 

as used Ian Subsection (e) 

&s eetion 3. of Article 

, k12own as t.he Ccllege Tuition Law, applies 

to cert,ain Junior College 

Districts, the boundaries 

of which do not adjoin the 

State boundary line. 

Your request for an opinion recites that Article 

2654~ of Vernon's Civil Statutes prescribes the .tuiticn rates 

to be charged at the several institutions of hig:her learning 

supported in whole or in part by public funds appropriated 

from the State Treasury. Subsection (e) (3) of Section 1 of 

this Article, however, provides in part: 

(1 

. . . 'and provided fdrther, that t;he 

provisions of this paragraph relating to 

non-resident student registration fees shall 

not apply to junior colleges -~_- located immeiiat.e- I__,- 

ly adjacent to State boundary lines, which in- 

_- . ..-._. ------.--- 

stitutions shall collect Xrom each non-resident 

student who registers for twelve (12) or more 

semester or term hours of work an amount equ-f~valent to the amount charged studen~ts frcm 

Texas by similar schools in the State of which 

the said non-resident student shall be a resldent." (Emphasis ours.) 

In view of the foregoing, you ask whether a junior 

college, the boundary line of which does not adjoin the State 

boundary line, but which is located in whole or part In a 

countv Wr.ich does so ad.loin~, would be consldered a jun5.or coilege located "immedi~ateiy adjacent to S-Late boundary lines," 

within the meani.ng ofi;he above quoted statutory ,provj~sio!-;. 
Dr. J, W. Edgar, page 2 WJ-521) 

As was pointed out in the case of Lone v, London 

g2Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, C,C,A. Ohio, 119 F.2d 

8. the phrase nimmediately adjacent" is synonymous with the 

phr&,e "i&mediately adjoining" and excludes-the-existence of 

any intervening space. Ry the use of the adverb %nmediately" 

in conjunction with the word "adjacent" we believe that the 

Legislature intended that there should be direct contact between the boundary line of the Junior College District and the 

State boundary line. Steel Products Corp. v0 Zbvtoniewski 

70 N,W,2d 671, 270 Wis. 245; Parsons v. Town of Wethersfieid, 

60 A.2d 771, 135 Corm, 24 4 A.L.R.2d 330; Pickens v. Waryland C ualtv CQ 2 N.W !?d 593. It would not suffice for 

Juniora~ollene Diitrict co be located in a 

the 

ries of which were contiguous to the State 

co'unty the ~boundaboundary line. 

This view is consistent with the administrative construction which has been given this section of Article 2654~ 

since its enactment by Acts, 50th Legislature, Regular Session, 

1947, Chapter 218, page 391. 

You are accordingly advised that it is our opinion 

that a Junior College is not immediately adjacent to the State 

boundary line unless the boundary line of the Junior College 

District adjoins or makes direct contact with the State boundary line. 

A Junior College is not immediately adjacent 

to the State boundary line within the meaning of 

Subsection (e) (3) of Section 1 of Article 2654~ 

unless the boundary line of the Junior College 

District adjoins or makes direct contact with ths 

State boundary line. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

Leonard Passmore 

Assistant 

LP:mfh:wb 
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 3 (WW-521) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Wm. R. Hemphill 

William E. Allen 

Thomas Burrus 

REKCEWEDFOR THEATTORREYGEHERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppcrt