The subject is a Missouri statute enacted back in 2014, drafted by a committee of the state bar, to enable a trust beneficiary to test the water before committing to a petition or motion that might trigger an in terrorem clause, forfeiting her interest in the trust. And how that statute has fared in five different cases reviewed by various state appellate courts.
We talked about one of these cases, Knopik, in Jack Straw volume three number four.
The link below is to a .pdf of the article as published. Also posted to SSRN.
I am finding that the article as printed was edited for a couple of style niceties that are inconsistent with my preferences, so I am also posting the typescript as submitted.
In particular, it is my practice to note motions for rehearing or transfer to the state supreme court, even where they were not granted, because I believe this information is actually of use to the practitioner in citing an appellate decision as authority.
Also, as regular readers of Jack Straw will have observed, I uniformly use the feminine form of the third person singular pronoun for generic references, and I am finding that the editor here prefers the plural to avoid the gendered pronoun altogether, with the result that there are plurals here where the singular would have been clearer.