The Robert W. Parsons case in 1903 was a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the jurisdiction of federal courts over maritime cases, particularly those involving contracts and torts. The dispute arose when the steamship Robert W. Parsons collided with another vessel on Lake Erie, causing substantial damage to both ships and their cargoes. The owners of the damaged goods sued for compensation in a federal court under its admiralty jurisdiction - an area of law governing maritime activities. However, there was disagreement about whether such incidents fell within this scope as they occurred on inland waters rather than high seas traditionally associated with admiralty law. In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that Great Lakes were indeed "navigable waters" under U.S constitution's commerce clause and thus subject to federal regulation including admiralty jurisdiction. This landmark decision expanded the reach of federal courts into areas previously thought reserved for state laws or common-law principles derived from English legal tradition.

In the dissenting opinion for The Robert W. Parsons case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that maritime law should be determined by international standards rather than domestic legislation alone. He believed that the majority's decision to allow a ship owner to limit their liability in cases of negligence was inconsistent with general maritime law and practices observed internationally. Furthermore, he contended that such a ruling could potentially harm American shipping interests abroad as it deviated from globally accepted norms and principles governing sea trade and navigation. Therefore, he dissented from the majority’s view on grounds of maintaining uniformity in international maritime laws and protecting U.S.'s commercial relationships with other nations.