The U.S. Supreme Court case Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. Cowan et al., 1939, revolved around a dispute over the ownership of land in Michigan that was submerged under water due to man-made changes to the natural flow of a river. The plaintiff, Dickinson Industrial Site, claimed it had acquired rights to this land from its previous owners and sought an injunction against defendants who were extracting sand and gravel from the property without permission. However, defendants argued they held riparian rights (rights relating to water bodies) which allowed them access for such activities as their properties bordered the river. The court ruled in favor of Dickinson Industrial Site stating that when non-navigable waters are artificially made navigable by private individuals or corporations for commercial purposes; those parties do not acquire any new riparian rights nor does it affect existing property boundaries or ownerships unless there is explicit statutory provision allowing so.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. Cowan et al., it was argued that there were significant issues with how the majority interpreted and applied property law principles in this case. The dissent believed that a more careful analysis of existing legal precedents would have led to a different outcome, one which respected established property rights while also taking into account public interest considerations. They contended that by allowing an easement without proper compensation or due process, the court effectively sanctioned an unlawful seizure of private property rights under eminent domain laws. This interpretation could potentially set dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over land use and ownership rights.