Galt Alloys, Inc. v. KeyBank National Ass'n
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Josephine Weigner v. The City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Central Trust Co. v. JensenOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- United States v. WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998
3Cited by12 opinions
- Huntington National Bank v. Motel 4 BAPS, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Settlers Bank v. BurtonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- In Re OchmanekUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · 2000
- Citimortgage, Inc. v. GuthrieOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Wood Cty. Health Dist. v. BauerOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.