In the 2002 case of David Meyer v. Emma Mary Ellen Holley, et al., the US Supreme Court had to decide on a dispute involving real estate transactions. Meyer, as President and designated officer/broker of Triad Inc., was accused by Holley and others for allegedly breaching his fiduciary duty during property sales in which he represented both buyer and seller without disclosing this dual agency status. The court ruled that while dual agency is not illegal per se under California law, it becomes so when there's no informed consent from all parties involved. In this case, since Meyer failed to disclose his double representation role adequately or obtain necessary consents from all parties involved before proceeding with the transactions, he was found guilty of breach of fiduciary duty.

In the dissenting opinion for Meyer v. Holley, it was argued that the majority's decision to not hold corporate officers personally liable for their company's Fair Housing Act violations misinterpreted both precedent and legislative intent. The dissent pointed out that previous rulings had established a broad interpretation of liability under this act, extending responsibility beyond just direct perpetrators to include those who control them as well. They also noted that Congress intended for the FHA to have wide-reaching effects in combating housing discrimination when they passed it into law. By limiting liability only to individuals directly involved in discriminatory practices, rather than including those with authority over such individuals within companies or corporations, the court undermines these intentions and weakens protections against housing discrimination.