In the case of Hooper v. California, 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime insurance and salvage rights. The plaintiff, Hooper, had insured a cargo ship that was subsequently damaged at sea. A third party salvaged the vessel and its cargo without any pre-existing contract or legal obligation to do so. When they sought compensation for their efforts from Hooper's insurance company under maritime law principles of salvage (which allow those who voluntarily save a ship or its cargo from peril to claim remuneration), the insurer refused payment arguing that it was not liable because there was no contractual relationship with the salvors. The court sided with the salvors in this matter stating that an implied contract existed between them and anyone who would benefit from their actions - including insurers like Hooper's company - regardless of whether there were explicit agreements in place beforehand. This ruling established important precedents regarding liability in cases where property is saved by third parties without prior arrangements.

In the dissenting opinion for Hooper v. California, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that it was not intended to interfere with state legislation concerning local matters but rather to ensure equal protection under law and due process. The majority’s ruling, according to him, overstepped federal authority by intervening in state affairs which he saw as an encroachment on states' rights. Furthermore, he contended that there was no violation of constitutional rights because all citizens were equally affected by this law; hence there was no discrimination or unequal treatment involved in this case.