In Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (1971), the US Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the application of a statute of limitations in an injury case involving offshore drilling operations. The plaintiff, George Huson, was injured while working on one of Chevron's oil rigs in 1965 but did not file his lawsuit until more than three years later due to confusion about which laws applied - state or federal maritime law. Under Louisiana state law, he would have had one year to sue; under federal maritime law, he would have had three years. The Supreme Court ruled that even though it had previously decided that federal maritime law should apply to such cases (in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U.S. 352), this decision could not be retroactively applied and therefore bar Huson’s claim as untimely filed because when he was injured and for two years thereafter there existed substantial doubt whether admiralty or Louisiana prescription governed his right to sue. Thus, the court held that its ruling in Rodrigue should only apply prospectively so as not unfairly deprive individuals like Mr.Huson who relied on existing legal precedent at the time their claims arose.

In the dissenting opinion for Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to apply a new rule retroactively was unjust and inconsistent with previous court decisions. He contended that this ruling would unfairly penalize parties who had acted in good faith under existing laws at the time of their actions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of congressional intent behind the statute in question, arguing instead that Congress intended for a more flexible approach to be taken when applying statutes of limitations in these cases. Finally, he expressed concern over potential negative impacts on maritime law and policy resulting from this decision.