In the case of Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 1986, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pennzoil, upholding a $10.53 billion verdict - the largest civil judgment in U.S history at that time. The dispute began when Texaco interfered with an agreement between Pennzoil and Getty Oil for a merger deal by offering Getty a higher bid which they accepted. Consequently, Pennzoil sued Texaco for tortious interference with contractual relations and won in Texas state court where it was awarded damages amounting to $7.53 billion plus $3 billion punitive damages totaling to $10.53 billion. Texaco then sought injunctive relief from federal courts arguing that Texas's bond requirements (which required them to post bond equivalent to the judgement sum before appealing) violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as it effectively barred them from exercising their right to appeal but this argument was rejected by both district and appellate courts. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions stating that since no final judgement had been made on whether or not Texaco would have to pay any part of the award pending its appeal under state law, there were no grounds for federal intervention.

The dissenting opinion in the Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 1986 case argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize and protect Texaco's constitutional rights, specifically its Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. The dissenters believed that by allowing Pennzoil to secure a lien on all of Texaco's property within Texas based solely on an unconfirmed jury verdict, without requiring any bond or other security from Pennzoil, effectively denied Texaco access to impartial review of the trial court judgment before it was enforced. They contended this violated principles of fairness inherent in due process guarantees and could result in irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law if the judgment were later found erroneous upon appeal. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that federal courts should abstain from intervening in state proceedings under these circumstances as it undermined important federal interests embodied in bankruptcy laws designed to centralize disputes about claims against debtors’ assets.