In the case of Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership et al., 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bankruptcy court could accept late-filed claims due to "excusable neglect." The dispute arose when Pioneer Investment Services filed proofs of claim on behalf of certain limited partnerships after the deadline set by Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3). The Bankruptcy Court and District Court rejected these late filings, but the First Circuit reversed this decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that 'excusable neglect' is not strictly limited to situations where failure to comply with filing deadlines is due to circumstances beyond one's control; rather it can encompass situations involving simple negligence or carelessness as well. In making its determination, courts should take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding a party’s omission including danger of prejudice to other parties involved, length of delay and potential impact on judicial proceedings etc. Therefore, in this case it ruled in favor of Pioneer Investments allowing their late-filed claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "excusable neglect" in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1). He argued that this term should be understood as it was traditionally defined at common law: a failure to timely perform a duty due to circumstances beyond one's reasonable control or without fault or negligence. The majority’s broader interpretation, which included simple carelessness under certain conditions, deviated from this historical understanding and gave courts too much discretion. This could lead to inconsistent application across different cases and jurisdictions. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had intended such an expansive definition of excusable neglect when drafting the rule, they would have explicitly stated so.