In the case of State of Delaware v. State of New York, et al., 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute between several states over which state had the right to escheat (claim ownership) abandoned or unclaimed intangible property held by brokerage firms. The primary disagreement was between Delaware and New York but involved other states as well. The court ruled in favor of New York, establishing that unclaimed dividends and securities should be given to the state where the debtor corporation is incorporated if it cannot be returned to its rightful owner after a certain period has passed - typically five years for most types of property under current laws. This decision clarified how existing escheatment laws applied to modern financial instruments like stocks and bonds.

In the dissenting opinion for the case State of Delaware v. State of New York, Justice Blackmun disagreed with the majority's decision to award New York most of the unclaimed dividends from Money Market Funds (MMFs). He argued that this ruling contradicted previous decisions regarding escheat laws, which typically favor a debtor’s state over a creditor’s state in disputes over abandoned property. According to him, MMF shareholders should be considered creditors and their shares as debt rather than equity investments. Therefore, he believed that these funds should have been awarded to Delaware where most MMFs are incorporated instead of New York where many brokers operate. This interpretation would align more closely with established precedent and provide greater predictability for future cases involving similar issues.