The U.S. Supreme Court case, The State of Maryland v. State of West Virginia in 1911, revolved around a boundary dispute between the two states. The disagreement was over the location of the southern border of Maryland and northern border of West Virginia along Potomac River's south bank - an issue that had been contentious since colonial times due to ambiguous language in land grants by British monarchs. In this case, both states presented historical documents and surveys to support their claims about where the line should be drawn. After considering all evidence, including previous rulings on similar disputes involving other states' borders based on royal charters from England’s King Charles I and II during 17th century colonization period, the court ruled in favor of West Virginia's interpretation for most part but also ordered some adjustments to ensure fairness for both parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for The State of Maryland v. State of West Virginia, it was argued that the majority's decision to favor West Virginia in a border dispute did not adequately consider historical context and precedent. The dissenting justices believed that the original intent behind colonial charters should be respected, even if they contained errors or ambiguities due to imperfect geographical knowledge at the time. They felt that these charters represented binding agreements between sovereign entities and should not be dismissed lightly. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's reliance on subsequent surveys as definitive evidence of boundary lines since those surveys were often flawed or biased themselves. In their view, this case called for a more nuanced interpretation of history rather than strict adherence to potentially erroneous maps and documents.