In the case of D. Grant Peacock v. Jack L. Thomas, 1995, Peacock sued his former attorneys for malpractice and fraud in connection with their representation of him in a divorce proceeding. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving state law claims when they are related to a bankruptcy case under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code). This decision was based on the interpretation of "related to" provision found within Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1334(b) which grants district courts original but not exclusive jurisdiction over civil proceedings arising under or related to cases under title 11. The court held that Congress intended broad jurisdictional grant when it enacted this statute and therefore, any matter whose resolution could conceivably affect the administration of an estate can be considered as falling within its scope. In this particular instance, since Peacock's claim against his lawyers arose from actions taken during his bankruptcy proceedings and could potentially impact those proceedings' outcome by increasing available assets for distribution among creditors, it fell within federal court's purview.

The dissenting opinion in the case of D. Grant Peacock v. Jack L. Thomas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Peacock liable for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C §1988, was incorrect and unjustified by law or precedent. The dissent contended that this statute only allows defendants to recover legal costs if they can prove that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation - something not demonstrated in this case according to them. They further pointed out that allowing such recovery could deter individuals from pursuing legitimate civil rights claims due to fear of financial repercussions if unsuccessful – thus undermining one of Congress' primary goals when it enacted §1988: encouraging private enforcement of civil rights laws.