In the case of Sisson v. Ruby et al., 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a fire that occurred on a yacht docked in a marina could be classified as maritime for purposes of federal jurisdiction under admiralty law. The fire had spread from the yacht to neighboring vessels and caused significant damage. The owner of one such vessel sued Mr. Sisson, who owned the yacht where the fire originated, in state court seeking damages; however, Mr. Sisson sought to have this case heard in federal court instead based on its maritime nature. The District Court ruled against him but upon appeal, both Appeals Court and Supreme Court agreed with Mr.Sisson's argument that since his vessel was engaged in traditional maritime activity at time of incident (being docked), it falls within scope of admiralty jurisdiction despite being non-commercial or private recreational boating activity. This ruling expanded interpretation for what constitutes "maritime" under Admiralty Law by including incidents involving private pleasure boats not just commercial shipping activities thereby broadening Federal courts' authority over certain types cases related waterborne accidents or disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Sisson v. Ruby, Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C §1333(1), which grants federal courts jurisdiction over maritime cases. He argued that not all incidents occurring on navigable waters should automatically fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction, as suggested by the majority. Instead, he believed that a more restrictive approach was necessary to determine whether an incident has a substantial connection to traditional maritime activity and thus falls within this category of law. In his view, Mr. Sisson’s fire accident in his yacht while docked at a marina did not meet these criteria because it had no potential disruptive impact on maritime commerce or navigation; therefore, it should have been handled by state rather than federal courts.