In the 1934 case Smith v. Snow et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lower court had erred in dismissing a bill of complaint without allowing for an amendment. The plaintiff, Smith, sought to recover damages from defendants who were officials of a labor union on grounds that they conspired to cause his wrongful expulsion from the union and subsequently prevented him from securing employment within his trade. The District Court dismissed Smith's initial complaint due to insufficient allegations regarding diversity of citizenship between parties involved - which is necessary for federal jurisdiction over such cases. However, it did not provide an opportunity for amendment before dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that this action by the lower court was erroneous as it denied Smith any chance at justice through amending his claim according to legal requirements. It held that if there are defects in pleadings but there’s reasonable expectation these can be remedied by amendments, courts should generally allow plaintiffs opportunity for correction rather than outright dismissal.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Snow et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of an insurance company refusing to pay out on a life insurance policy due to alleged misrepresentation by the insured party, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant factual disputes about whether or not any misrepresentations made by the insured party were material and intentional enough to justify voiding his policy. They also disagreed with how much weight should be given to medical testimony regarding these disputed facts. Furthermore, they contended that even if some form of misrepresentation had occurred, it did not necessarily mean that this would have affected the insurer's risk assessment at all - something which they felt needed more thorough examination before such a serious action as denying payment could be justified.