In the 1981 case of California v. Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nevada by a vote of 6-3. The dispute arose over an ambiguous boundary line between the two states that had been established in their respective constitutions when they were admitted to the Union. This ambiguity led to disagreements about jurisdiction and law enforcement authority along Lake Tahoe's shoreline and its waters, which are shared by both states. California sought to have this boundary clarified under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which grants original jurisdiction to disputes between states at the Supreme Court level. However, Justice William Rehnquist wrote for majority opinion stating that while it was true that such cases fell within their purview as per Article III; not every case required them to exercise this power - particularly if there were other adequate forums available for resolution like negotiation or compact agreement between disputing parties themselves. The court held that because no substantial harm was being done due either state’s inability to enforce laws effectively on disputed area; nor any significant hindrance existed towards administration justice – thus did not warrant intervention from highest court land.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Nevada, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to deny California jurisdiction over a car accident that occurred in Nevada but involved Californian residents. He argued that denying jurisdiction based on where an incident took place rather than considering other factors such as residency and insurance policies was too simplistic and rigid of an approach. In his view, this could lead to unfair outcomes when one state has a significant interest in providing relief to its citizens who are injured out-of-state by fellow citizens. Furthermore, he believed it would be more appropriate for states themselves to determine their own laws regarding personal jurisdiction instead of having these decisions dictated by federal courts interpreting the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.