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 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,~ ~: 

of ,a.public sohoo1.i: ;' .,,;" .~, ~~ .~.is:z;.‘ ;, ,.~.:/. .,.~ 

. ;.. .,..,,. ~.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 

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 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. 256, ,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; 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,~200 S.W. 

356, 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'authoriced 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 prohibltory 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+re for the purpose, ofsuch regulationi Nor can such regulation be, othetiw$se,than 

;