In the case of Hopson et al. v. Texaco, Inc., 1965, a group of African American employees filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, Texaco Inc., alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs claimed that they were subjected to discriminatory employment practices such as unequal pay and promotion opportunities compared to their white counterparts. They also alleged that Texaco had created a racially hostile work environment through its policies and actions. After years-long litigation process involving multiple appeals, the court eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Texaco to implement significant changes in its employment practices including establishing fair hiring procedures and providing equal opportunities for promotions irrespective race or color.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hopson et al. v. Texaco, Inc., argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply relevant state law regarding property rights and damages. The dissent contended that under Texas law, which should have been applied in this case as it was a diversity action involving land located in Texas, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover for damage caused by salt water contamination resulting from oil drilling operations conducted by Texaco on adjacent lands. They believed that such contamination constituted an actionable trespass under state law and thus disagreed with the majority's conclusion that no cause of action existed because there had been no physical invasion or appropriation of plaintiffs' property by Texaco. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to address whether any exceptions or qualifications might exist concerning recovery for non-trespassory invasions under Texas law.