In the case of Just et al. v. Chambers, 1940, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and personal injury liability. The plaintiff was injured while working aboard a ship owned by his employer when he slipped on an oil spot left by another employee's negligence. He sued for damages under general maritime law and won in lower courts; however, his employer appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that they were not liable because they had provided workers' compensation insurance as required by federal statute. The court upheld the previous rulings in favor of Mr. Chambers (the worker), stating that even though employers provide workers’ compensation insurance, it does not exempt them from additional liabilities under general maritime law if their negligence results in injuries to employees onboard their vessels. This decision set a precedent allowing seamen to sue for damages beyond what is covered by workers' compensation if they can prove their injuries resulted from employer or co-worker negligence - reinforcing protections offered to seafarers under U.S Maritime Law.

In the dissenting opinion for Just et al. v. Chambers, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law allowing prejudgment attachment without notice or hearing was in violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such laws could lead to abuse and unjust deprivation of property by enabling creditors to seize debtors' assets before trial based on mere allegations of fraud. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on historical precedent as an excuse not to scrutinize contemporary practices more closely for potential constitutional violations. In his view, it was essential for courts not only to consider whether procedures were fair at their inception but also whether they remained so over time given changes in societal conditions and legal standards.