In the case of Oppenheimer v. Harriman National Bank & Trust Co., 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oppenheimer. The dispute arose when Harriman National Bank and Trust Company claimed that a stock certificate owned by Oppenheimer was actually theirs as it had been stolen from them. However, they could not provide any evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, Oppenheimer argued that he bought the certificate in good faith without knowledge of any theft or wrongdoing associated with it and thus should be considered its rightful owner under New York law which protects bona fide purchasers against claims arising out of lost or stolen securities if purchased for value without notice of adverse claims. The court held that since there was no proof provided by Harriman bank about their ownership over the disputed stock certificate nor did they show any negligence on part of Oppenheimer while purchasing it; therefore, his rights as a bona fide purchaser were upheld.

In the dissenting opinion for Oppenheimer v. Harriman National Bank & Trust Co., Justice Cardozo expressed concern over the majority's decision to allow a debtor, who had previously declared bankruptcy and been discharged of his debts, to later recover assets that were not included in the original bankruptcy proceedings. He argued that this ruling contradicted established principles of equity and fairness by allowing a debtor to benefit from his own failure or neglect to disclose all assets during bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that such an approach could potentially undermine public confidence in the integrity of bankruptcy law by incentivizing dishonesty among debtors about their true financial circumstances. In essence, Justice Cardozo believed that once a debtor has received discharge through bankruptcy, they should not be allowed further benefits at creditors' expense due to their own omission or oversight.