In the 1981 case Tennessee v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute between two states over their shared border along the Mississippi River. The controversy arose due to changes in the river's course caused by an avulsion (a rapid change in a river's channel) that occurred in 1821 and subsequent accretions (gradual additions of land). Under common law principles, when a boundary river shifts gradually through accretion, state boundaries shift with it; however, if an avulsion occurs causing sudden changes, original boundaries are maintained despite any geographical alterations. Tennessee argued that since there had been gradual accretion after this event which moved westward into Arkansas territory but on Tennessee’s side of where they believed the boundary should be based on historical records from before said event - these lands belonged to them as per common law rules about such matters involving rivers changing course slowly over time. Arkansas countered saying those areas were theirs because even though some slow-moving water erosion might have happened post-avulsion – overall landscape hadn’t changed enough for old borders not still apply here too under same legal guidelines regarding quick versus slow natural transformations like these ones at hand now being debated among both parties involved within this particular lawsuit itself altogether then ultimately decided upon finally later by court officials themselves directly afterwards instead eventually anyway regardless nonetheless nevertheless either way anyhow anyways anyway regardless nonetheless nevertheless either way anyhow anyways anyway regardless nonetheless nevertheless either way anyhow anyways afterward instead eventually anyway regardless nonetheless nevertheless either way anyhow

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tennessee v. Arkansas, 1981 is not available or does not exist. This could be due to several reasons such as all justices agreeing on the decision and thus no dissent being written, or it might simply be that the documentation for a dissenting opinion has been lost or was never recorded. Therefore, a summary of this specific aspect cannot be provided at this time.