Casey v. Schneider was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Casey, was held in a federal prison in Pennsylvania. Casey sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Casey v. Schneider, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages from the defendant for his negligence. He argued that while it may be true that a person is liable for any injury caused by their own negligence, this liability does not extend to injuries caused by another's negligence. In this case, he argued that since there was no evidence of any agreement between the parties or of any duty owed on either side, then there could be no recovery against one party based solely on another's negligent act. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if an agreement had been made between them and a duty existed as a result thereof, such an agreement would have been void under state law due to its illegality and thus unenforceable in court. Therefore he concluded that regardless of whether or not either party acted negligently in causing injury to the other; neither should be held responsible for damages resulting from such acts because they were both equally at fault and without legal recourse against each other