In the case of In re Claasen (1890), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy and fraudulent conveyance. The defendant, Claasen, was accused of fraudulently transferring property to his wife in order to avoid paying debts owed to creditors. He was subsequently charged with perjury for falsely swearing that he had not made any such transfers during his bankruptcy proceedings. The court held that under Section 5041 of the Revised Statutes, it is considered perjury if a person knowingly and willfully makes false oaths in relation to any material matter during their bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, since Claasen's actions were found to be deliberate and deceitful with an intent to defraud his creditors by concealing assets during his bankruptcy process, he was guilty as charged.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Claasen, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus based on technicalities contradicted established legal principles. The dissent emphasized that even if there were procedural errors in lower courts, these should not prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing and rectifying potential injustices. It was further contended that denying review due to such minor issues could potentially lead to grave miscarriages of justice. Moreover, it was pointed out that this approach might undermine public confidence in the judicial system as a whole by suggesting an undue focus on form over substance. The dissent also criticized what they saw as an overly narrow interpretation of federal jurisdiction which would limit access to justice for many individuals who had been convicted under state law but believed their constitutional rights had been violated.