Legal Opinion

Galt Alloys, Inc. v. KeyBank National Ass'n

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1999No. Nos. 98-437 and 98-499PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The court of appeals has framed the issue in conflict as being “[whether] actual notice of the date, time, and location of a sheriffs sale [must] be afforded to a defaulting defendant in a foreclosure action.” Similarly, KeyBank proffers as its proposition of law that “[a]ctual notice of the date, time, and location of a sheriffs sale must be afforded to every party to a foreclosure sale and to each party having an interest therein, including a defaulting defendant in a foreclosure action.”

In determining the issue certified to us, we turn to the landmark case of Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Josephine Weigner v. The City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
  4. Central Trust Co. v. JensenOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. United States v. WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Huntington National Bank v. Motel 4 BAPS, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Settlers Bank v. BurtonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. In Re OchmanekUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 2000
  4. Citimortgage, Inc. v. GuthrieOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Wood Cty. Health Dist. v. BauerOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API