Dutcher v. Wright was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a new trial in a case that had already been decided by a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of land in the state of Michigan. The plaintiff, Dutcher, had obtained a judgment in a federal court in favor of his claim against the defendant, Wright. Wright then sought a new trial in a state court, which was granted. Dutcher then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to grant a new trial in a case that had already been decided by a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was bound by the decision of the federal court and could not grant a new trial. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction to review the merits of the case, as the federal court had already done so. The Court concluded that the state court's decision to grant a new trial was in error and reversed the decision.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dutcher v. Wright, a case concerning whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their negligence when they had previously agreed to indemnify another party from such liability. Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent, as well as common sense. He noted that if parties are allowed to contractually agree on matters of responsibility and liability between them, then it should be respected by courts unless there is clear evidence of fraud or illegality involved in making such agreements. Furthermore, he argued that allowing individuals who have already contractedually agreed upon certain liabilities with one another to later seek relief from those same liabilities would create confusion and uncertainty within contractual relationships which would ultimately lead to more litigation rather than less. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that the majority's ruling was wrongfully decided and should not stand as good law going forward due its potential implications on existing contracts between parties throughout the country.