Bradley v. Fisher was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Louisiana. The plaintiff, Bradley, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Fisher, in 1867. Fisher, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not been given proper notice of the sale. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Bradley, ruling that the sale was valid and that Bradley was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that Fisher had received sufficient notice of the sale, and that the sale was valid under Louisiana law. The Court also held that Bradley had acted in good faith in purchasing the land, and that he was entitled to the land as a result. The decision in Bradley v. Fisher established important legal principles regarding the validity of land sales in Louisiana. It also established that a party who purchases land in good faith is entitled to the land, even if the seller had not received proper notice of the sale. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving land sales in Louisiana.

In Bradley v. Fisher, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their powers of appellate review over decisions made by lower federal courts in certain circumstances. He reasoned that since Congress has given states broad powers when it comes to judicial matters, they should be able to use those same powers for appeals as well. Furthermore, he noted that allowing state courts to review cases from lower federal courts would help ensure uniformity across all jurisdictions and provide greater protection for citizens’ rights under the law. Ultimately, while his view was not adopted by the majority of justices at the time, Justice Field's dissenting opinion remains influential today in discussions about how best to balance power between different levels of government within our legal system