In the 1972 case Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland et al., the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction could be applied in an aviation accident that occurred over navigable waters but did not involve traditional maritime activity. The case arose when a jet owned by Executive Jet Aviation crashed into Lake Erie shortly after takeoff from Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland due to multiple bird strikes causing engine failure; no one aboard survived and the wreckage sank into the lake's navigable waters. The company sued for damages under federal admiralty law, arguing that because it happened over water, it fell within its scope. The court ruled unanimously against this argument stating that merely occurring on or over navigable waters is insufficient for invoking admiralty jurisdiction - there must also be a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity which wasn't present here as aviation isn't inherently marine-related like shipping or navigation are. This decision established what came to be known as "the locality plus" test (or "navigational nexus" test) where both location and connection with maritime activities are considered before applying admirality laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland et al., Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to limit admiralty jurisdiction to cases involving traditional maritime activity was overly restrictive and not supported by historical precedent or statutory language. He contended that this new limitation ignored previous rulings where non-maritime activities were considered under admiralty law due to their potential impact on navigation and commerce. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for the court to introduce a locality test into an area of law traditionally governed by federal statutes without clear congressional intent supporting such a change. In his view, any aircraft accident occurring over navigable waters should fall within admirality jurisdiction because it could potentially disrupt maritime commerce.