Recently, I wrote about the Clout Construction memorandum decision, which is about the trial de novo available under A.R.S. § 12-910.
That decision mentioned a case, Duncan v. Mack, in connection with the proposition that a trial de novo “should be tried in all manners as though the superior court were the court of original jurisdiction.”
Here is the portion of the opinion in Duncan v. Mack from which that proposition is drawn:
What is meant under our statutes by a trial ‘de novo’? The literal meaning of the word is a second time. Or in the same manner; with the same effect.
We have had a somewhat similar question under consideration in the case of Davis v. Campbell, and said, quoting from McCall v. Marion County: “The statute makes no provision as to the mode by which that question shall be tried on the appeal, and therefore the rules of practice and procedure which prevail in ordinary actions at law must be the guide. The reasonable presumption is that when the Legislature gave the right of appeal, and made no provision for the procedure thereon, it meant that the practice in ordinary actions and proceedings in the circuit court should apply. The cause on appeal must be tried as an ordinary action at law, without formal pleadings, however, and must necessarily result in a judgment either for or against the appellant.”
It has always been the practice in Arizona in appeals from a justice court to a superior court that the case be tried as though it were one of original jurisdiction in the superior court, and in Burris v. Davis, we have held that to be the correct rule in considering similar language in regard to criminal appeals. It would, therefore, seem to be the law of Arizona that on a trial de novo, where by our statute an appeal is allowed from the action of an administrative board to the superior court, in the absence of a specific statute to the contrary, the case should be tried in all manners as though the superior court were the court of original jurisdiction.
From: Duncan v. Mack, 59 Ariz. 36, 40–41, 122 P.2d 215, 217–18 (1942) (internal citations omitted)
The appellate Court’s reliance on this description of a trial de novo could be a big deal. It appears to suggest that a trial de novo (for instance, a trial de novo after a hearing at the Registrar of Contractors) could be a radical re-do handled like a kind of lawsuit: “tried in all manners as though the superior court were the court of original jurisdiction.”
