In the Shively v. Bowlby case of 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Oregon along the Columbia River. The court had to decide whether or not riparian rights (rights relating to water bodies) were granted under federal common law or state law when it came to lands that were part of public trust doctrine (land held by government for use by general public). In this case, Mr. Shively claimed he owned waterfront property based on a patent from the United States while Mr. Bowlby asserted his claim based on an earlier grant from Oregon's territorial government which included riparian rights. The Supreme Court upheld that states have authority over their navigable waters and adjacent lands unless expressly given up in its constitution or statutes, even if they are later sold into private hands; thus ruling in favor of Bowlby who had obtained his title under state laws granting him riparian rights as well as ownership of submerged lands out to low-water mark. This decision established important precedent regarding how disputes involving coastal and riverfront properties would be resolved between private parties and also clarified jurisdictional issues between federal and state governments concerning control over such areas.

In the dissenting opinion for Shively v. Bowlby, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important historical context. He contended that under English common law, which had been adopted by many states including Oregon where this case originated, landowners held rights to tidal waters adjacent to their property up until high-water mark during ordinary tides. This included rights over soil beneath those waters and any resources therein such as oysters or minerals. The majority's ruling contradicted this principle by granting these rights instead to the state government based on a misinterpretation of public trust doctrine in his view. Furthermore, he pointed out that when Oregon became a state it did not explicitly claim ownership of these lands unlike some other states thus suggesting they remained private property under existing laws at time of its admission into Union.