Opinion ID: 1058386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Tucker Decision

Text: The plaintiffs in Tucker submitted a request for a permit to construct a landfill to the defendant commissioners. Tucker, 944 S.W.2d at 615. The Board rejected the plaintiffs' request, and the plaintiffs appealed to the local chancery court. Id. at 616. The trial court stated that it would conduct a new hearing with each party having the right to present testimony and other evidence material to the issues. No hearing was held, however, and the chancellor instead ruled that the method of judicial review prescribed by the Jackson [l]aw shall be by Common Law Writ of Certiorari on the record of the Commission meeting to determine whether or not the ... Commission acted illegally or beyond the scope of its authority. Id. The Court of Appeals concluded that de novo review of the denial of a landfill permit allows the parties to present additional or supplemental proof but does not permit the trial court to substitute its judgment for that of the county commission. Id. at 619. The intermediate appellate court held that de novo review was required only as to the factual question of whether a fact or facts exist which justified the Board in refusing the permit. Id. at 621. We take this opportunity to overrule Tucker's interpretation of the standard of review required by the Jackson Law and to clarify that the standard of review is not dependent upon the standards of review required by either the common law writ of certiorari or the statutory writ of certiorari. [2] We recognize that TWM properly filed its appeal under a statutory writ of certiorari and that the statutory writ may provide for a form of trial de novo. However, the meaning of `trial de novo' in each statute is ... dictated by the wording and context of the statute in which it appears and by the nature of the administrative body, decision and procedure being used. Cooper, 746 S.W.2d at 179. In this case the Jackson Law sets forth the standard of review and requires a de novo review in landfill permit cases. We hold that the de novo review required by the Jackson Law permits the trial court to consider any new evidence and requires the trial court to consider the facts and determine the law as if no prior determination had been made. See Cooper, 745 S.W.2d at 281; Odle, 206 S.W.2d at 419. We overrule Tucker and reiterate that de novo review under the Jackson Law requires the exercise of the chancellor's independent judgment in reviewing the county commission's decision.