Dial v. Reynolds was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Dial and Reynolds, over a debt. Dial had obtained a judgment against Reynolds in a state court, and Reynolds then filed a writ of error in the federal court to have the judgment reversed. 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 issue a writ of error to a federal court. The Court further noted that the state court was not a court of appeals, and thus could not review the decisions of the federal court. The Court's decision in Dial v. Reynolds established that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot review the decisions of federal courts.

In Dial v. Reynolds, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because there was no diversity of citizenship between the parties involved in this dispute and thus it could not be heard by a federal court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that even though there was no diversity of citizenship present, the state courts still had jurisdiction to hear cases involving contracts made within their borders regardless of where either party resided or were citizens. He further argued that allowing such disputes to be heard in federal courts would lead to unnecessary delays and expense for both litigants as well as create confusion about which forum should handle these types of cases going forward. Ultimately, Justice Field's dissent went unheeded and his position on jurisdictional matters failed to gain traction with other justices on the bench at this time.