In the case of Pufahl, Receiver, v. Estate of Elvira J. Parks, Deceased (1936), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court could adjudicate on matters relating to federal bankruptcy proceedings. The dispute arose when Mrs. Parks' estate claimed that it had not received full payment for property sold to Mr. Pufahl before he declared bankruptcy and sought compensation from his receiver in a Wisconsin court. However, since Mr.Pufahl's assets were under control of a federal bankruptcy court at the time, there was uncertainty over jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Pufahl’s receiver stating that once an individual has been declared bankrupt by a federal court all their assets fall within its exclusive jurisdiction until final settlement or closure is reached; therefore any claims against these assets must be made directly through this forum rather than via separate litigation in state courts. This decision helped clarify legal ambiguities surrounding concurrent jurisdictions between different levels of courts during ongoing insolvency procedures thereby ensuring smoother administration processes for future cases involving similar circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Pufahl v. Estate of Elvira J. Parks, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a receiver in bankruptcy to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor prior to declaring bankruptcy. He argued that these payments were not fraudulent transfers under New York law because they did not deplete the assets available to creditors and were made in good faith as part of normal business operations. Furthermore, he contended that federal bankruptcy law should respect state laws regarding fraudulent conveyance unless there is a clear conflict between them, which he did not believe existed in this case. Therefore, Justice Cardozo would have upheld the lower court's ruling denying recovery of these funds by the receiver.