The U.S. Supreme Court case Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf in 1915 revolved around a dispute over property rights and the interpretation of Arizona's community property laws. The plaintiff, Louis Zeckendorf, had sold goods to M. & L. Zeckendorf Company on credit while Albert Steinfeld was married to Bettina Schloss who held one-third interest in the company as her separate estate under Arizona law at that time which considered all properties acquired during marriage as community property unless specifically agreed otherwise by both parties involved or if it is an inheritance or gift received by either spouse individually. When the company went bankrupt, Louis sued for his money but Albert argued that since he did not personally owe anything to Louis because only his wife’s separate third of the business owed him money and therefore he should not be liable for any debts incurred by his wife's share of ownership in the business. However, after reviewing previous rulings and interpretations of similar cases within Arizona state courts regarding their community property laws, The Supreme Court ruled against Albert stating that even though Bettina owned a third part separately from her husband; still being married they were jointly responsible for each other's debts including those related to their shared business interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf, it was argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to state court was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds for federal jurisdiction in this case as both parties involved were citizens of Arizona and therefore, it should have been handled by a state court from the beginning. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted certain aspects of bankruptcy law in their ruling, arguing instead that under existing laws at that time, a trustee had every right to sell off assets belonging to an insolvent debtor without needing prior approval from creditors or courts. Furthermore, they felt that any disputes arising out of such sales should be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation.