Legal Opinion

F. & H. Investment Co. v. Sackman-Gilliland Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 15, 1975No. 45412PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Appeal from the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary-judgment. Plaintiffs sought to set aside a mortgage foreclosure on the ground that foreclosure by advertisement authorized by Minn. St. c. 580 is an unconstitutional deprivation of property prohibited by the due process clause of U. S. Const. Amend. XIV. The trial court, without specifying the particular questions raised, certified to this court the broad issue of constitutionality. We remand the cause to the trial court.

This action was initially brought by the F. & H. Investment Company, the mortgagor of the real estate. Some time…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Thompson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  3. Pierce v. Foley Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  4. Staples v. ZinnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  5. State v. MollerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Zobel & Dahl Construction v. CrottySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  2. Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
  3. Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
  4. State v. BraunCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Gruening v. PinottiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

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