to show that the report is inaccurate, the case is not ripe for summary judgment. There has to be something resembling a trial on the fact issues in dispute. The majority doubts that de novo review obliges the court to accord a “trial-type hearing” on an issue that the agency was not required to hear in the first instance and in fact did not hear. See Maj.Op. at 698 n. 10. De novo review requires the court to assess the issues “as it does in any civil matter tried to the court.” Weahkee, 587 F.2d at 1265. The court determines the accuracy of a factual matter in a civil action in only one way — by hearing and considering the conflicting evidence. When the court’s judgment on the credibility of witnesses could be determinative, then the court should hear their testimony. See id. at 1266 (<HOLDING>). Other courts addressing amendment actions
holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding that jurisdiction exists for determining if disputed facts are material holding that the trial court inappropriately resolved the case containing hotly disputed material facts without hearing any testimony from the parties most directly involved holding case tried on stipulated facts where order indicated that the parties agreed during telephone hearing with the court that no material issue of fact existed holding that under the facts of that case the action primarily involved a custody dispute and therefore that the trial court erred in determining the case by applying the dependency statute