In the Groves v. Sentell case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state has jurisdiction over its navigable waters and can regulate vessels within those boundaries. The dispute arose when Louisiana resident Mr. Groves sued Captain Sentell for damages after his steamboat was sunk by Sentell's tugboat on Lake Caddo, which is shared between Texas and Louisiana. However, because both parties were from Louisiana, it was argued that federal courts had no jurisdiction under maritime law as this usually applies to high seas or tidal waters only. The court held that while maritime law did not apply in this instance due to the location of Lake Caddo being inland rather than coastal or connected directly with sea navigation routes, states have authority over their own internal navigable waters even if they are non-tidal in nature like Lake Caddo. This ruling established an important precedent regarding state versus federal control over waterways and clarified how laws related to marine incidents should be applied depending on whether they occur within a state’s internal water bodies or national/international waterways.

In the dissenting opinion for Groves v. Sentell, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal authority into state matters. He contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of a federal court to decide on issues related to property rights and obligations under state law unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights or federal laws. In this case, he believed no such violation existed as Louisiana’s civil code allowed for dogs to be considered personal property with qualified ownership depending on their use and value. Therefore, in his view, Mr. Groves had every right under Louisiana law to reclaim his lost dogs without having them sold off by Mr.Sentell who found them astray without any identification tags or marks indicating they were owned by someone else.