DCPCUP-0000-00643 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6- Adjustment . In this case the Court heard live testimony and all wit- nesses were subjected to cross-examination as part of the search for truth" . (Reply Brief of the Plaintiffs, p.3 ) The plaintiffs contend that certain witnesses had never been cross-examined before the hearing, and others had not yet testified at all; therefore, all their testi- mony was "new" . In this Court ' s understanding, the Klinger standard refers to substance rather than type of evidence. For example , if the record consisted entirely of documentary evidence, the testimony of a new witness, although formally different , may still comprise evidence that is substantially the same as the documentary evidence . Enabling a circuit court to pre-empt the discretion committed to the Board by, for another example, simply taking in affidavit form some testimonial evidence already on the record, runs counter to the Supreme Court ' s mandate that the Board receive due deference. Although the defendant, Madison Crushing, introduced evidence at the hearing that was not before the Board, its evidence supports the decision of the Board, and it is not pertinent to the question of whether or not the plaintiffs ' evidence is substantially the same as that before the Board. Accordingly, this Court finds that the evidence it took in the evidentiary hearing is substantially the same as the evidence that was before the Board. Pursuant to Klinger, the evidentiary hearing must be treated asa nullity and the Court is bound by a common-law certiorari standard of review. Under the common-law standard, the review is limited to the . following: