In the case of Filhiol v. Maurice in 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Louisiana law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy debts violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Filhiol, argued that his property had been unlawfully seized and sold by Maurice without proper notice or opportunity for him to contest it in court. The Supreme Court ruled against Filhiol, upholding Louisiana's laws regarding debt collection as constitutional. The justices found no violation of due process rights because they determined that sufficient notice had been given before seizing and selling off assets to pay back creditors. They concluded that while states must provide fair procedures when depriving individuals of their property rights (as required by the Due Process Clause), this does not necessarily mean there has to be an opportunity for a hearing prior to every instance where state action might result in loss or damage.

In the dissenting opinion for FILHIOL v. MAURICE, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Maurice was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Filhiol had not been given an adequate opportunity to present his case and defend his rights due to procedural errors at trial level. They felt that these errors were significant enough to warrant a retrial or reversal of judgment, as they could have potentially influenced the outcome of the case. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain laws and precedents were interpreted by both the lower court and their fellow Supreme Court justices in reaching this verdict. As such, they expressed concern about potential implications for future cases involving similar issues if this ruling stood unchallenged.