Court Opinion

ID: 9458104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:43:17.76572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:38.498407
License: Public Domain

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Congress saw fit to provide for “a trial de novo” in the District Court. Under any normal construction of legal language, such a grant of power gives to the reviewing court all the power that the court or agency below possessed, including the power to enter a disposition or judgment different from that originally entered.
The usual definition of trial de novo is:
“trial de novo. A trial anew, a re-trial in a superior court on an appeal of the case from an inferior court.” Ballen-tine’s Law Dictionary 1300 (2d ed. 1948).
Corpus Juris Secundum heads its section on Trial De Novo with these words:
“A trial de novo is a trial had as though no action whatever had been instituted in the court below, a new trial in an appellate tribunal.” 5 C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1524 (1958).
My brothers construe the language which follows “trial de novo by the court” as a limitation upon that term. On its face,, however, the phrase “in which the court shall determine the validity of the questioned administrative action in issue” describes but does not limit.
As I read the statute the majority’s construction reads into the statute the word “solely” which Congress saw fit not to employ.
I do not deny that there is force to the arguments of my brethren. But rather than accept what I believe to be misuse of the term “trial de novo” I would refer the Secretary to Congress to seek amend*303ment of the statute in the event his construction proves to represent Congressional intent.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.