In Allen v. Tarlton, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case arose out of a dispute between two parties in Texas, Allen and Tarlton, over a contract for the sale of land. Allen had sued Tarlton in a state court, and Tarlton had appealed the case to a federal court. The federal court had ruled in favor of Allen, and Tarlton had then sought to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of the United States, and thus did not have the power to review the decisions of a federal court. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, as the dispute was between two parties in Texas and the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court, and thus the decision of the federal court was final. The Court also noted that the state court could not review the decision of the federal court, as the state court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

Justice Harlan, in his dissenting opinion for Allen v. Tarlton, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He believed that the court had misconstrued the language of a state statute which provided for an appeal from a judgment rendered by a justice of peace to the county court. According to Justice Harlan, this statute did not require any particular form or mode of proceeding on such appeals; rather it only required that notice be given to all parties involved so they could appear and defend their interests before the county court if they wished. The appellant in this case had done just that - he gave timely notice as required by law - but because he failed to follow certain technical rules regarding how notices were served upon other parties, his appeal was denied by both lower courts and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. In Justice Harlan's view, these technicalities should have been disregarded since there was no dispute about whether proper notice had been given or received; thus denying him relief based solely on procedural errors would result in an unjust outcome contrary to what Congress intended when passing this law.