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 ownership of) unclaimed intangible personal property held by a corporation. The court ruled in favor of New Jersey, establishing two principles for determining jurisdiction in such cases: firstly, that the property should escheat to the state where the debtor corporation is incorporated; and secondly, if that place cannot be determined or does not have laws concerning escheatment of such properties, then it should revert to the state where creditor resides. This decision resolved conflicts between states regarding their rights to claim abandoned property and established clear rules for future disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. New Jersey et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply a rule of escheat based on primary corporate domicile was misguided and lacked historical precedent. He contended that such an approach would lead to unjust results, as it could allow a state with little connection to the property or its owner to claim it. Instead, he proposed applying traditional conflict-of-laws principles which consider factors like location of property and residence of creditors in determining rightful ownership. This method, according to him, would be more equitable and consistent with existing legal norms around property rights disputes across states lines.