**I,, ’**  **: I** 

**‘ :**  **‘ ,** 

**. OFFICE**  **OF THE**  **A-i-i-ORNEY GENERAL**  **‘ OF**  **‘ TEXAS**  **~ ,**  **’**

**‘**

**. AUSTIN** 
**m-G*** **,i.**

**,. .i**  **’**

**: ‘** 

**. I.** Upon a careful exmination of the Texas Liquoor'Cootrol Act togetherwith it3 amnkm~t, ve Pied that.Artlcle 665-253a~tborlze~coinlssio2ers~ co~urts nad cities aad to*vhs to prohl35.t

t&a ssle of alcoholicbeczrageswithin 300 feet OS any churah, public school or public hospital. ,Said.seotion' 253 of Article 666,.readsas follows: 'I

"The ,comis3ioners' court OS 'any

oountg’in tic2 territory thereof outsiae iacor,corated cltlessnd tovas and the governing authoritiesof arq city or : to-m vlthln the corpoPate.fitits of any suoh~

city or i. toxn my proMbit the~sale o? alcoboliobeveragesby 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.propertylioes. ~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~~¬ connectedath.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,~ ~: of ,a.public

sohoo1.i:

;'.,,;" .~, ~~ .~.is:z;.‘ ;, ,.~.:/. .,.~

. ;.. .,..,,. ~.I;~ ~,/ In OpinGkki “‘ &3843 ~of this~de&rtq&t,; ~&sing ‘,‘- .: apon.thevallfiity

of :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.have hoac ~sule or: special chktezk,~ must conform to the, Constitution

and the State law.'~ .L' .Any city ordinance which is in conflictvith a state ,. statute c.overSng

the ~sone subjeat is void,: .Oitgof, ,,. Lubbock v. SoothplainEa~dware’ Co., 1.11

S. 14. (2d), 383; CLtg of Wichita Falls v? ContinentalOil Co,;,' 117 "L." Tex. 256, ,15. 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; 30 ,~\' ,' Texas Jurisprndcnce 301, %c. 167 azd authoritles~cited therein. This general rule has beeo aell’esprizmsed

. : . ’\. _.~ : ~~~ ” .~’ .~., ‘ ,:::.~-;-,.,.-.. ~,.Y: ‘ , ! ., .I’ .::~~.~.:~z ,~ ” 1

, Iionorable

Shelby F. along,

page 3 ,j. 1 .~i.. ;,:, “~ ~‘ , ,, ~. 5 by Davidson,j Pr".j., speaking for the Courtof'Crininal 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'authoriced by the state lav cannot be prohibitedby city

. ordizaucedireatly or inalrectly. A business,whlch ~1sregulated'bythe state cannot be prohibitedby .i tihe city either by express enactneat or by prohibltory regulatron. A'buslness regulateaby the state
. cazmot be regulated by, the cityi otherwise than by grant of power to such city in the charter,passed. by the'Leglslat+re for the purpose,

ofsuch regulationi Nor can such regulationbe, othetiw$se,than ;