PROBLEM – CONFIRM vs. VACATE AWARD: One problem the Court of Appeals sees on a regular basis involves the District Court review of Arbitration Awards. Typically one side moves to “vacate” the award and the other side files a separate motion to “confirm” the award. According to the Court of Appeals, in many cases where the court denies the motion to vacate, judges frequently neglect to rule on the motion to confirm the award (or in absence of a motion, fails to sua sponte confirm the award). An appeal can only be taken from a judgment that “confirms” the arbitration award. An order that denies a motion to vacate (but fails to “confirm” the award), leaves the case “hanging” and no appeal can be taken.
This one page Update states the problem, identifies the applicable statute, applies a solution in the form of a Judicial Best Practice and provides Court Administrators with advice on how to avoid the problem.
TO READ MORE CLICK ON LINK BELOW:
SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM: Minnesota is one of 39 states to enact “address confidential” legislation for victims of domestic violence. In 2007, M.S. Chapter 5B established the “Safe at Home” Program which is operated through the Office of the Secretary of State.
The “Safe at Home” Program allows victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking who fear for their safety to enroll in an address confidentiality program. The core tenet of the program is the non-disclosure of a crime victim’s residence. However, Safe at Home is not just for victims of domestic violence and stalking. The program can include anyone who fears for their safety (law enforcement, etc.).
This Training Update will answer 3 questions:
1) What is the Minnesota “Safe at Home” program?
2) How does it benefit victims of domestic violence, and
3) Under what circumstances can the District Court order disclosure of a victim’s confidential physical address?
TO READ MORE CLICK THE LINK BELOW: