Court Opinion

ID: 9627844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:56:53.342548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:46:23.350882
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, Justice:
(concurring).
Although I agree with the meaning the majority has given the phrase “de novo” as it is used in U.C.A., 1953, § 34-35-8 (Supp.1986), I write separately to note that the term has no intrinsic meaning and to suggest that it would be better to discontinue its use. A clear statutory explanation of the standard of review would be more helpful.
The term “de novo” means “anew, afresh, a second time.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 392 (5th ed. 1979).
“Power to try a case de novo vests a court with full power to determine the issues and rights of all parties involved, and to try the case as if the suit had been filed originally in that court.” The sine qua non of a de novo trial as that term is used to describe a retrial of a matter or controversy theretofore tried by another tribunal is the nullification of the judgment or order of the first tribunal and a retrial of the issues on which the judgment or order was founded. When jurisdiction of the second tribunal attaches, the judgment or order of the first tribunal is not merely suspended, but is nullified.
... [The second tribunal] does not merely review the judgment of the [first] but tries the issues anew.
Southern Canal Co. v. State Board of Water Engineers, 159 Tex. 227, 318 S.W.2d 619, 622 (1958) (citation omitted; emphasis in the original). See also In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 388 A.2d 422, 424 (1978). An example of a true trial de novo is a retrial of a justice of the peace court case in the circuit court. See U.C.A., 1953, § 78-5-14 (Supp.1986). On the other hand, true appellate review involves a review of the record of proceedings in an inferior court by a superior for the correction of error. In section 34-35-8, the legislature has created what appears to be a hybrid form of review which requires the district court to function as both an initial fact finder and a reviewer of error. We have attempted to give some substance to this standard of review. However, it cannot properly be referred to as a “trial de novo.” 1
ZIMMERMAN, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of DURHAM, J.

. Unfortunately, Utah’s legislature is not alone in its imprecise use of the term de novo. See, e.g., Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or.App. 178, 471 P.2d 831 (1970) (discussing an *637Oregon procedure calling for a "trial de novo on the record” and creating a strange standard requiring no deference except on issues of credibility).