ordinance are consistent. When the legislature has stated the purpose of a state law and specified the criteria for evaluating compliance with it, then a local ordinance imposing different requirements is inconsistent with the state statute. See City of Wichita Falls v. Abell, 566 S.W.2d 336, 338-39 (Tex.1978) (where alcohol sales within 300 feet of a school were prohibited, a local ordinance requiring the distance to be measured building-to-building was inconsistent with state law requiring the distance to be measured along property lines). But if the state and local provisions serve different purposes, then different methods of determining compliance do not render the two provisions inconsistent. See Robinson v. City of Longview, 936 S.W.2d 413, 417 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Thus, to determine if the ordinance is
recognizing that school districts may not enter agreements which are inconsistent with state law holding that the court may issue an injunction prohibiting a defendant from repeating statements determined at trial to be defamatory holding that ordinance prohibiting topless dancing at locations where alcoholic beverages are served was not inconsistent with state law prohibiting municipalities from imposing stricter standards on premises where a liquor license is required holding that a company policy violated the act by prohibiting employees from discussing employment conditions with the companys clients holding that landlord whose sincere religious beliefs were inconsistent with premarital cohabitation was entitled to exemption from states enforcement of human rights act prohibiting discrimination based on marital status