Northeast Mental Health-Mental Retardation Commission v. V.M. Cleveland

¶32. I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the rule against binding successors is inapplicable in this case. Because Section 41-19-33 evinces a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law rule against binding successors, the rule is inapplicable to the Commission’s contract with Cleveland. I also would hold that the contract was not void ab initio. I would affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court of Lee County in favor of Cleveland.

A. Because Section 41-19-33 manifests a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law rule against binding successors, the rule is inapplicable…