In the case of Cole v. Violette et al., 1942, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by lower courts regarding a property dispute in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Mrs. Cole, claimed that she had been wrongfully dispossessed of certain lands and sought recovery from Mr. Violette and others who were currently occupying it. However, both the district court and state supreme court ruled against her on grounds that she failed to establish her title to the land beyond reasonable doubt - which is required under Louisiana law for such cases. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether these rulings violated Mrs.Cole's rights under federal due process clause as she argued that this standard of proof was too stringent compared with other states' laws where only preponderance of evidence would suffice. However, Justice Black delivering opinion for unanimous court held that there wasn't any violation since each state has power to determine rules governing property disputes within its jurisdiction including evidentiary standards unless they are fundamentally unfair or violate specific constitutional prohibitions which wasn't found here. Thus affirming decisions below denying Mrs.Cole's claim over disputed lands.

The dissenting opinion in the case of COLE v. VIOLETTE et al., 1942, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring union membership as a condition of employment was an overreach and violated workers' constitutional rights. The dissent contended that this law interfered with individuals' freedom to associate or not associate with any group they choose, which is protected by the First Amendment. They also believed it infringed upon their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law because it discriminated against non-union members. Furthermore, they asserted that such laws could lead to corruption and abuse within unions since employees would be forced into membership without having any real say in union activities or policies.