In Griffith v. Frazier, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court's decision to grant an injunction against a defendant was not binding on another state court in which the same parties were litigating over similar matters. The case arose from two suits brought by William Griffith and his wife against John Frazier in Kentucky courts for debt collection purposes. In one suit, the Kentucky court granted an injunction restraining Frazier from disposing of any property until he paid off his debts to Griffiths; however, when they sued him again in another county for additional debt payments, Frazier argued that he had already been enjoined from doing so by virtue of the first ruling and should therefore be exempt from paying more money. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that each state has its own laws governing such matters as injunctions and thus rulings made by one are not necessarily applicable or enforceable elsewhere within their jurisdiction.

In Griffith v. Frazier, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and affirmed its decision in favor of the plaintiff. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this ruling on two grounds: first, he argued that it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive federal judicial power over controversies between citizens of different states; second, he argued that even if such cases were within state court jurisdiction they should be tried by jury rather than by judges as was done in this instance. He concluded his dissent with an admonition against allowing any one branch or level of government too much authority at the expense of another's powers and responsibilities under our system of checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers.