The U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v. New Jersey et al., 1964, was a dispute over which state had the right to escheat (claim) unclaimed intangible personal property held by a corporation. The controversy arose when Sun Oil Company, incorporated in New Jersey but with its principal place of business in Texas, possessed unclaimed dividends and other obligations owed to owners whose last known addresses were spread across several states or unknown entirely. Both Texas and New Jersey claimed the right to these funds under their respective escheat laws. The court ruled that when it comes to intangible personal property such as debts owed by corporations, if the debtor's state seeks to escheat then it should be allowed unless there is another state with superior claim based on either: (1) the creditor’s last known address being within its borders; or (2) corporate domicile coupled with insufficient records regarding creditor identity or location.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. New Jersey et al., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to establish a new rule regarding unclaimed property disputes between states. He argued that this was not within the Court's jurisdiction, as it is essentially a legislative matter rather than judicial one. The justice believed that such issues should be resolved by Congress or through interstate compact agreements, which would allow each state to negotiate terms based on their individual interests and circumstances. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative consequences of imposing a uniform rule without considering these factors - including possible unfairness towards certain states and disruption of existing legal arrangements related to unclaimed property management.