In the case of Gasquet v. Lapeyre et al., 1916, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Gasquet, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties based on his interpretation of Louisiana's civil code regarding succession rights. However, the defendants (Lapeyre and others) argued that they were rightful owners due to their purchase from another party who had acquired it through an earlier succession process. The lower courts ruled in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision by interpreting Louisiana's civil code as not granting automatic ownership rights upon death but rather requiring formal legal processes for transferring such rights. It held that since these processes were not followed when Gasquet’s relative died intestate (without a will), his claim was invalid against those who subsequently purchased it legally from other successors.

In the dissenting opinion for Gasquet v. Lapeyre et al., it was argued that the majority's ruling failed to properly consider Louisiana law, which should have been applied in this case as per federal rules of diversity jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that under Louisiana law, a creditor has a right to annul an act of bankruptcy fraud even if they were not specifically defrauded by it themselves. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "creditors" and "claims," arguing that these terms should be interpreted more broadly than just those who hold legally enforceable debts at the time of bankruptcy filing. Furthermore, they contended that there was sufficient evidence presented during trial showing fraudulent intent on part of debtor when transferring his property prior to declaring bankruptcy - something overlooked by majority opinion according to them.