The Fisher v. Pace, Sheriff case in 1948 revolved around the issue of habeas corpus and whether a state court's decision could be reviewed by federal courts. The petitioner, Fisher, was convicted for murder in Texas and sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been denied due process because of coerced confessions used as evidence against him during trial. His appeal was rejected by both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and U.S Supreme Court initially. However, after new evidence emerged suggesting that his confession may have indeed been coerced, Fisher filed a writ of habeas corpus with a Federal District Court seeking relief from his sentence based on this new information - which was also dismissed. Upon reaching the Supreme Court again, it held that while generally federal courts should not interfere with state court decisions unless there is clear violation or misapplication of law; when substantial claims are made regarding denial of fundamental constitutional rights like due process (in this case), then such cases merit reconsideration irrespective of previous adjudications.

The dissenting opinion in the Fisher v. Pace case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court regarding habeas corpus petitions. The dissent pointed out that Fisher had been denied his constitutional right to counsel during a critical stage of his trial, which should have warranted federal intervention. They contended that if state courts fail to protect these fundamental rights, it is incumbent upon federal courts to step in and correct such injustices through habeas corpus proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on procedural default rules and believed this should not bar consideration of Fisher’s claim as he had no opportunity for meaningful review at state level due to lack of legal representation.