green
Positive treatment
28.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
James D. Merchant, James D. Merchant, Personal Representative for James T. Merchant (Deceased) v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Missouri
(3×)
“The proposed intervenor carries the burden of establishing the presence of all three elements required for intervention as a matter of right.” Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re The Adoption of: K.L.C.B.; J.A.S.; and C.S. v. D.L.B.
In other words, unless a proposed intervenor contends that a statute grants an unconditional right,3 the proposed intervenor must establish three elements to be entitled to intervene as a matter of right: “(1) an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (2) that the applicant’s ability to protect the interest is impaired or impeded; and (3) that the existing parties are inadequately representing the applicant’s interest.” Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting State ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shannon Robinson v. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Respondent; St. Louis County, Appellant; Board of Trustees, Livingston County Health Center and Melanie Hutton, Administrator, Cooper County Public Health Center, Appellants; Jefferson County Health Center, Appellant; Jackson County, Missouri
Rather, the decision is one involving application of the law.” Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Mo. App. 2012). 11 1991) [Frost II], recognized the established principle that post-judgment intervention should be “granted only if substantial justice requires intervention,” but the Court did not undertake an analysis of that requirement because the propriety of post-judgment intervention was not at issue in the case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY v. DOUGLAS L. COVERDELL, and CITY OF BRANSON
The rule “should be liberally construed to permit broad intervention[.]” Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 482 (Mo. App. 2012) (citation omitted); see State ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jennifer A. Britt v. Jeremy M. Otto
The first requirement necessitates an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action. "'An interest, for the purposes of intervention as of right, means a concern, more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire.'" Id. (quoting Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wagoner v. ConocoPhillips
Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 482-83 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
BMO Harris Bank v. Hawes Trust Investments, LLC
(4×)
“Motions to intervene as a matter of right ... are typically decided based upon the motion, pleadings, counsel’s arguments, and suggestions in support or opposition to the motion.” D.L.T., 428 S.W.3d at 657 (citing Allred, 372 S.W.3d at 483).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DOUGLAS L. COVERDELL, and COVERDELL ENTERPRISES, INC., and CITY OF BRANSON, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent, and ARVEST BANK, and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., n/k/a U.S. BANK, N.A., Intervenors-Respondents, and COMMUNITY BANK OF THE OZARKS
Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (reviewing the denial of a motion to intervene).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Empire District Electric Co. v. Coverdell
Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (reviewing the denial of a motion to intervene).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri ex rel Ideker, Inc. v. The Honorable Jack Grate
(3×)
Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State ex rel. Ideker, Inc. v. Grate
(3×)
Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.S.K. ex rel. J.J.K. v. D.L.T.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477, 483 (Mo.App.2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Larry D. BRASHIER
v.
STATE of Missouri
v.
STATE of Missouri
No. WD 73708.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Mar 20, 2012.
Mary R. O’Neill, Columbia, MO, for appellant., Shaun J. Mackelprang and Mary H. Moore, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Ellis, Pfeiffer, Witt.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM:Larry Brashier appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.
We affirm. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties.