In the case of French v. Taylor, 1905, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding property rights and water access in Washington state. The plaintiff, French, claimed that he had been denied his right to use a certain body of water for commercial purposes due to an alleged obstruction by Taylor's wharf. He argued this was against public policy which allowed free navigation on navigable waters and sought damages from Taylor for loss of business income. However, the court found in favor of defendant Taylor stating that while all citizens have equal rights to navigate public waters for commerce or pleasure without unnecessary interference; they do not possess any special privileges over others concerning these bodies' usage or control beyond what is necessary for their reasonable use and enjoyment. Therefore, as long as there was no unreasonable obstruction caused by Taylor's wharf construction which would impede general navigation significantly - it could be considered lawful under riparian law principles governing waterfront properties.

In the dissenting opinion for French v. Taylor, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring oyster dredgers in Maryland waters to be residents of the state violated both the Privileges and Immunities Clause and Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissent contended that this law discriminated against out-of-state citizens by denying them equal access to a common property resource, which is contrary to constitutional principles guaranteeing all citizens equal privileges and immunities under state laws. Furthermore, they believed this ruling interfered with interstate commerce as it restricted non-residents from participating in an economic activity within Maryland's borders - namely harvesting oysters for sale across state lines - thus violating federal jurisdiction over such matters.