In the Honeyman v. Hanan case of 1936, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York law that allowed an executor to sell real estate without court approval violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Mrs. Honeyman, argued that she had not been given proper notice or opportunity for hearing before her property was sold by Mr. Hanan, who served as executor of her late husband's will which contained a power-of-sale clause allowing him to do so at his discretion and without court intervention. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Hanan stating that due process does not always require judicial proceedings; it merely requires an opportunity for hearing appropriate to nature of case before deprivation occurs - something Mrs.Honeyman received when she signed off on her husband’s will with full knowledge about its terms including said power-of-sale clause. This decision affirmed states' rights in determining their own probate laws and clarified what constitutes 'due process' under Fourteenth Amendment regarding sale/transferal of properties within estates managed by executors/administrators appointed through last wills/testaments.

In the dissenting opinion for Honeyman v. Hanan, Executor, 1936, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied a widow her husband's life insurance policy benefits due to an alleged misrepresentation in his application. He argued that there was insufficient evidence of intentional fraud on the part of the deceased and emphasized that it is unjust to penalize beneficiaries for mistakes made by insured individuals without clear proof of fraudulent intent. Furthermore, he contended that any ambiguity in insurance contracts should be resolved in favor of coverage rather than denial because insurers have control over contract language and can avoid ambiguities if they choose. Thus, he believed this case represented an unfair shifting of risk from insurer to insured based on technicalities rather than substantive issues related to insurability or moral hazard.