In the case of Hahn v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co., 1958, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction over an admiralty claim brought by a longshoreman who was injured while working on a barge in navigable waters within that state's boundaries. The plaintiff, Hahn, argued that his injury occurred due to negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel owned by Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. The company contended that since it happened on navigable waters (which are under federal jurisdiction), only federal courts could hear such cases based on maritime law principles. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hahn stating that concurrent jurisdiction existed between state and federal courts for certain types of maritime cases including personal injury claims arising from alleged negligence or unseaworthiness. This decision upheld the principle established in previous rulings like Atlantic Transport Company v. Imbrovek where it was held that "the right to recovery for death or injuries received upon navigable waters within a State is not necessarily defeated because redress therefor is sought under State statute". Thus, this case confirmed states' rights to adjudicate specific kinds of maritime disputes occurring within their borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Hahn v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of maritime law and its application to this case. He argued that the court should not have extended federal admiralty jurisdiction to a tort claim arising from an incident on navigable waters within a state, as it was contrary to historical precedent and understanding of maritime law. According to him, such matters were traditionally under state jurisdiction unless they had a direct impact on maritime commerce or navigation. In his view, extending federal jurisdiction in this way would disrupt the balance between state and federal authority by encroaching upon areas typically governed by states' rights.