In the 1932 case of Cortes, Administrator v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning maritime law and wrongful death claims. The plaintiff was an administrator for a deceased seaman who died in international waters due to negligence by his employer, Baltimore Insular Line. The defendant argued that under maritime law at that time, there was no provision for damages in cases of wrongful death occurring outside territorial waters. However, the court held that despite this lack of explicit provision within federal statutes or general maritime law itself; it could still apply state laws regarding wrongful deaths extraterritorially if they were not inconsistent with any existing federal legislation or policy considerations related to foreign affairs or interstate commerce. Therefore, it allowed recovery based on Puerto Rican civil code provisions permitting such actions even though the fatal accident occurred beyond its jurisdictional limits.

In the dissenting opinion for Cortes, Administrator v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., Justice Stone argued that the majority had misinterpreted the Death on High Seas Act (DOHSA). He contended that DOHSA should not be read to exclude all other forms of action under general maritime law but rather to provide an additional remedy where death occurs more than a marine league from shore. The majority's interpretation would mean that if a seaman dies within territorial waters due to negligence or unseaworthiness of his ship, his dependents could recover damages under general maritime law; however, if he died beyond territorial waters due to identical circumstances they could not recover such damages. This inconsistency seemed unjust and illogical in Justice Stone’s view. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress did not explicitly state this exclusion in DOHSA which suggests it was never their intention.