41-2631.
City ordinance conflicting with act void; ordinance limitations.
No city shall enact any ordinance in conflict with or contrary to the provisions of this act and any ordinance of any city in effect at the time this act takes effect or thereafter enacted which is in conflict with or contrary to the provisions of this act shall be null and void. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as preventing any city from enacting ordinances declaring acts prohibited or made unlawful by this act as unlawful or prohibited in such city and prescribing penalties for violations thereof, but the minimum penalty in any such ordinance shall not exceed the minimum penalty prescribed by this act for the same violation, nor shall the maximum penalty in any such ordinance exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by this act for the same violation.
History:
L. 1965, ch. 316, § 31; May 22.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. City ordinance setting specific hours for closing of private club does not conflict with statute. Blue Star Supper Club, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 208 Kan. 731, 732, 735, 495 P.2d 524.
2. City ordinance regulating private clubs not in conflict with statute held valid. Garten Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 219 Kan. 620, 623, 624, 549 P.2d 864.
Bigs v. City of Wichita, 23 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 5דPursuant to K.S.A. 41-2631 any city ordinance which conflicts with the Club and Drinking Establishment Act is null and void.”
State Ex Rel. Kline v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cty., 85 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2004). “sive power to control and regulate traffic in alcoholic liquor and the manufacture of beer, it did not include the Private Club Act which dealt with consumption of alcoholic liquor: "In concluding that the regulation and control of the consumption of alcoholic liquor is not an…”
City of Lyons v. Suttle, 498 P.2d 9 (Kan. 1972). “In Blue Star Supper Club we said: "In concluding that the regulation and control of the consumption of alcoholic liquor is not an area exclusively reserved by the state we believe it is significant that when the legislature adopted K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 41-2631 as a component part…”
DPR, INC. v. City of Pittsburg, 953 P.2d 231 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “K.S.A. 41-2631, a portion of the State’s Liquor Control Act, restricts a city from enacting ordinances ‘in conflict with or contrary to the provisions of this act.”
State ex rel. Kline v. Unified Bd. of Commissioners, 85 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2004). “sive power to control and regulate traffic in alcoholic liquor and the manufacture of beer, it did not include the Private Club Act which dealt with consumption of alcoholic liquor: “In concluding that the regulation and control of the consumption of alcoholic liquor is not an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.