Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): due process required that a petitioner be given the opportunity to file a motion for a hearing by an article V judge and challenge the traffic commissioner’s findings as part of the trial de novo process before the article V judge entered judgment against him. Id. at 698. According to Dabin and Stiens, due process allows a party to file with an article V judge a motion for a hearing on the traffic commissioner’s findings and recommendations prior to entry of judgment. Upon considering the motion, the circuit judge may elect to grant a hearing and may consider admissible evidence not previously offered to the traffic commissioner because no final judgment has been entered in the case. See Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845, 845 (Mo. banc 1998); Keck v. Keck, 969 S.W.2d 765, 766 (Mo.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). By granting a hearing after the traffic 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy (B) holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted (C) holding that appellate courts lack the authority to review a decision issued by a commissioner unless such decision is adopted by an article v judge because a commissioner is not authorized to exercise judicial power pursuant to article v of the missouri constitution (D) holding that definition of the term final decision has been left to the commissioner to flesh out by regulation (E) holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute
Output (English): holding that definition of the term final decision has been left to the commissioner to flesh out by regulation