437 S.W.3d 279
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Relator Ideker, Inc. sought to intervene as of right in a Jackson County Circuit Court proceeding challenging MDNR permits for Ideker's asphalt operations.
- Grandview filed a petition for judicial review and sought vacatur of Permit No. 1343A and unlawful issuance of Proposed Permit No. 1369; a TRO was granted and a preliminary injunction was scheduled.
- Ideker’s motion to intervene was denied by the trial court, prompting a mandamus petition to this court; a preliminary writ was issued.
- MDNR’s ongoing involvement and anticipated issuance of a stationary permit (Permit No. 1369) formed part of the dispute, including Grandview’s claims that MDNR acted unlawfully.
- The court held Ideker established an interest in the underlying permit proceedings, impairment of its rights absent intervention, and inadequate representation by MDNR, supporting intervention as of right.
- The court ultimately made the preliminary writ absolute, directing the trial court to grant Ideker’s motion to intervene; a contempt claim by Ideker was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ideker has a right to intervene | Ideker has a direct, immediate interest in the permits at issue and will be impaired without intervention. | Grandview argues Ideker’s interest is insufficient or not adequately represented by MDNR. | Yes; Ideker has an absolute right to intervene under Rule 52.12(a)(2). |
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel intervention | Mandamus is appropriate to compel the discharge of ministerial duties to allow intervention. | Discretionary interpretations and separate procedural routes may apply; intervention denial needs not mandamus. | Mandamus is appropriate to grant intervention as of right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (intervention standards; three elements for right to intervene)
- State ex rel. Reser v. Martin, 576 S.W.2d 289 (Mo. banc 1978) (denial of intervention as final and appealable)
- Eckhoff v. Eckhoff, 242 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (interlocutory appeal vs. writ review; finality considerations)
- Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. Banc 2012) (liberal construction of intervention rule)
- Underwood v. St. Joseph Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 368 S.W.3d 204 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (liberal interpretation of intervention)
- Allred v. Carnahan, 372 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (intervention standards; minimal showing for third element)
- Burg v. Dampier, 346 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (injunctive relief discretion; molding decree)
- Payroll Advance, Inc. v. Yates, 270 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (injunction considerations; balance of harms)
- Gabbert v. Dir. of Revenue, 925 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. Banc 1996) (injunctive relief factors; balance of harms)
- Reser v. Martin, 576 S.W.2d 289 (Mo. Banc 1978) (finality of intervention denial appeal right)