defining “de novo” as “[a]new”
How later courts described this case
- defining “de novo” as “[a]new”
- “The word ‘de novo’ means fresh or anew; for a second time; and a de novo trial in appellate court is a trial had as if no action whatever had been instituted in the court below.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rodman, J.,
concurring in result:
Each school board is authorized to determine the school which the children within its boundaries shall attend. Such determination is an assignment. G.S. 115-176. If a parent is dissatisfied with the assignment so made, he may apply to the board for reassignment — that is, assignment to a different school. It is the duty of the board to reassign if “the reassignment of the child to such school will be for the best interest of the child, and will not interfere with the proper administration of the school.” The board finding these facts directs “that the child be reassigned to and admitted to such school.” G.S. 115-178.
*624 If the parent is not satisfied with the findings and conclusion made by the school board in which the child resides, the parent may appeal to the Superior Court. Upon such appeal, there is a hearing de novo. If the facts be there established as plaintiff contends, it becomes the duty of the Court to make an order fixing the school which the child shall attend. G.S. 115-179.
Ordinarily, a school board can only assign or reassign children to the schools of the unit in which they reside, but pupils residing in one administrative unit may be assigned to a school located in another administrative unit upon such terms and conditions as the respective boards may agree upon. G.S. 115-163.
There is no evidence in this record of any written contract between the Wayne County and Fremont City School Boards. But it is established by Fremont Board’s evidence that it had a contractual arrangement with Wayne County Board by which Fremont could, and did, reassign children to Wayne County schools. In fact, some were reassigned to the Aycock School.
Fremont does not contend that the applicant is not within the class covered by the contract between the two boards. It denies applicant’s right to transfer on the theory that such transfer is not to the best interest of the Fremont school.
So long as Fremont has a contractual right to assign children to the Aycock School, it has, in my opinion, the duty to reassign, if applicant establishes facts requisite for reassignment. Fremont cannot pick and choose between qualified applicants. It is at liberty to make a contract with the Wayne County Board describing with particularity classes or groups which may be reassigned. Only those within the described class may be assigned, or reassigned, to the contracting school; Board of Education v. Board of Education, 259 N.C. 280 , 130 S.E. 2d 408 ; but anyone within the described class may apply for reassignment. If he establishes the facts required by the statute, he must be reassigned.