In the case of Abrams et al. v. Van Schaick, Superintendent of Insurance, et al., 1934, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York state law that allowed for the liquidation of insolvent insurance companies violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were policyholders in an insurance company that had been declared insolvent and placed into receivership by New York's Superintendent of Insurance. They argued that they did not receive adequate notice or opportunity to challenge this decision before their policies were cancelled and assets distributed among creditors. The court ruled against them, upholding the constitutionality of New York’s law on grounds it provided sufficient protection for policyholders' property rights while also serving a legitimate public interest in maintaining stability within its insurance industry. It found no violation of due process as there was provision made for notification and hearing after seizure if solvency is disputed by stakeholders like shareholders or policyholders.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Abrams et al. v. Van Schaick, Superintendent of Insurance, et al., was penned by Justice Cardozo who disagreed with the majority's ruling that a New York law allowing for the liquidation of insolvent insurance companies did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that this decision failed to adequately protect policyholders' property interests and their right to fair compensation when an insurer becomes insolvent. According to him, it is unconstitutional for state laws to allow liquidators appointed by courts or regulatory bodies to distribute assets without first providing adequate notice and opportunity for policyholders or creditors to challenge these decisions in court. He believed such actions could potentially lead to unfair distribution of assets among claimants which would be contrary to principles of justice and fairness inherent in due process protections.