ALLEN R. KILLIAN, Respondent, vs. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, Appellant.
Decision date: November 23, 2015SD33832
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
ALLEN R. KILLIAN, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD33832 ) MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL,) FILED: November 23, 2015 ) Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEW MADRID COUNTY
Honorable Fred Copeland, Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED (Before Scott, P.J., Bates, J., and Sheffield, C.J.) PER CURIAM. Allen Killian filed a petition "pursuant to Section 589.400(7)" to remove his name from Missouri's sex offender registry. 1 The local prosecutor, notified per §589.400.9, offered no objection. After a brief hearing at which only Killian and his attorney appeared, the trial court entered an order in Killian's favor.
1 Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2012; rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2014). Since there is no §589.400(7), we presume Killian meant to cite §589.400.7. Killian did not request relief from registering under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. §16901 et seq.; compare Dunivan v. State, 466 S.W.3d 514, 516 n.1 (Mo. banc 2015).
2
Shortly thereafter, t he Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) "and the State of Missouri, through the Attorney General's Office" moved to intervene as a matter of right. Their motion was denied. Eventually, a final judgment was entered in favor of Killian. MSHP appeals, asserting in part trial court error in denying its motion to intervene. 2 We must agree. Under Dunivan (decided after the trial court's ruling), MSHP satisfies Rule 52.12(a)(2)'s elements and was entitled to intervene in Killian's case below. See 466 S.W.3d at 519-20. We grant MSHP's third point, reverse the trial court's judgment, and remand for further proceedings. 3
2 The "State of Missouri, through the Attorney General's Office" did not join the notice of appeal. 3 As in Dunivan, we do not reach MSHP's other, merit-based points because MSHP will have the opportunity to present those arguments to the trial court on remand.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450