In the Hughes v. Washington case of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Hughes regarding a dispute over accreted land (land that has increased due to natural processes such as sediment deposition). The State of Washington had claimed ownership based on its status as an owner of tidelands adjacent to the accreted land. However, Hughes argued that he was entitled to this new property because it was attached to his existing plot and resulted from slow and imperceptible natural forces rather than sudden changes or human intervention. The court agreed with him, stating that under common law principles, when new land forms slowly and naturally along a waterfront property line, it becomes part of said private property - not public state-owned tideland.

In the dissenting opinion for Hughes v. Washington, Justice Stewart disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal common law and its application to this case. He argued that state law should govern disputes over accretions (gradual increases) to coastal land, rather than federal common law as determined by the Court in previous cases such as Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona and Borax Ltd v Los Angeles. According to him, these precedents were incorrectly decided because they failed to respect principles of federalism and states' rights over local property matters; he believed that only state courts should decide on issues related directly or indirectly to real estate within their jurisdiction unless there is a clear conflict with an overriding national interest which was not present in this case according to him.