In the case of Farrell v. Lockhart, the Supreme Court examined whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy a judgment debt was constitutional. The appellant, Farrell, argued that this violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as he had not been given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard before his property was seized. However, the court ruled against him stating that due process does not require prior notice and hearing in all cases involving deprivation of property. Instead, it depends on balancing several factors including public interest and risk of erroneous deprivation. In this particular case where there is an important state interest in ensuring prompt satisfaction of judgments and low risk of error since debtor can challenge validity later if necessary; no violation occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Farrell v. Lockhart argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important factors regarding the defendant's right to a fair trial. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Farrell had not been given adequate legal representation, as his attorney did not properly investigate or present evidence which could have potentially exonerated him. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "prejudice" under Strickland v. Washington, arguing that any deficiency in counsel’s performance which could have affected the outcome should be considered prejudicial and thus grounds for a new trial.