In the 1979 case of California v. Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over the boundary line between these two states. The conflict arose when both states claimed jurisdiction over an area around Lake Tahoe known as "Ski Run Road". California argued that it had exercised jurisdiction in this area for many years and therefore should continue to do so, while Nevada contended that according to an 1892 survey which established their shared border, Ski Run Road fell within its territory. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nevada based on principles of acquiescence and estoppel. Acquiescence refers to acceptance or compliance silently or without protest; estoppel prevents someone from arguing something contrary to a claim they previously made or acted upon. The court found that although California may have exercised some authority over the disputed land, it did not consistently assert exclusive rights there nor did it object when Nevada also asserted authority - hence acquiescing by default. Furthermore, because both states had agreed on using the 1892 survey as their official boundary marker (which placed Ski Run Road in Nevada), California was now stopped from claiming otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Nevada, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss California’s original action against Nevada without prejudice. He argued that this dismissal was inconsistent with past Supreme Court decisions and could potentially lead to a never-ending cycle of litigation between states. According to him, if one state sues another in federal court and loses on the merits, it should not be allowed to file an identical lawsuit later simply because new evidence has been discovered or circumstances have changed slightly. This would undermine finality in legal disputes and encourage states to constantly re-litigate issues they've already lost on before. Instead of dismissing the case without prejudice as per majority ruling, he suggested that it should be dismissed with prejudice - meaning permanently - so as not to allow future similar lawsuits from being filed again by California against Nevada over same issue.