Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1943 )

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 ;