The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Ohio v. Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1984 was a dispute over the boundary line between the two states along the Ohio River. The controversy arose from differing interpretations of an 1792 act by Virginia, which had jurisdiction at that time, stipulating that the border would be on the low-water mark on the north side of river as it existed then. Over time, changes to water levels and land formations caused confusion about where this original point lay. Ohio argued for a more northern boundary based on current conditions while Kentucky maintained that historical markers should prevail regardless of physical alterations to landscape or river flow since 1792. In its decision, The Supreme Court sided with Kentucky's interpretation and ruled in favor of maintaining historical boundaries rather than adjusting them according to geographical changes over time.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Ohio v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's reliance on historical precedent was flawed and did not adequately address contemporary realities. He contended that while it may have been reasonable in 1792 to use a river's low-water mark as a boundary line, this approach is no longer practical due to changes in technology and land usage over time. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to consider how their decision would impact existing property rights along the border between Ohio and Kentucky. In his view, these factors should have led them to adopt a more equitable solution rather than simply adhering rigidly to an outdated principle.