# Texfi Industries, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · August 15, 1980 · 301 N.C. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854172

## Case

- **Full name:** TEXFI INDUSTRIES, INC., a Corporation v. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, a Municipal Corporation, BETH FINCH, Mayor, J.L. DAWKINS, WAYNE WILLIAMS, MILDRED EVANS, BILL HURLEY, GEORGE MARKHAM, MARION GEORGE, Members of the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, and A.D. JOHNSON, Acting Tax Collector for the City of Fayetteville
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** August 15, 1980
- **Citations:** 301 N.C. 1; 269 S.E.2d 142; 1980 N.C. LEXIS 1146
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carlton
- **Judges:** Britt, Exum, Carlton
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854172

## Opinion text

Justice Carlton
dissenting.
I join in Justice Exum’s dissent. It is inconceivable to me that our annexation statutes were intended to permit the kind of action taken by Fayetteville in this case. It is patently preposterous to allow annexation by referendum where there are no “qualified voters” to vote.
I am in further disagreement with the majority opinion. I find no incompatibility between plaintiffs’ desire to vote in an annexation proceeding and the responsibility of government to insure the integrity of the franchise to vote. It is true that modern corporations “[represent] a variety of interests and positions within [their] framework.” It does not follow, however, that a corporation cannot speak with a single voice. A corporate board can decide how the corporation will cast its vote in an annexation referendum the same way it makes any major policy decision — by a vote of the board of directors.
The majority also seems concerned that corporations can be residents of a number of jurisdictions and that multiple subsidiaries would present the opportunity for multiple voting. It is enough to say that that possibility does not appear in this case. Denial of the right to vote should not be predicated upon the fear of potential abuse. Such abuse can be prevented by appropriate legislation.
In other words, I jüst do not agree with the apparent maj ority concern that practical voting procedure problems should preclude our corporate citizens from a voice in annexation elections. I would hold that the denial of their right to vote in annexation referenda is a violation of equal protection of the laws.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854172. Public record. Not legal advice.