In the case of Hill, Warden, v. United States ex rel. Wampler in 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning habeas corpus and extradition laws between states. The respondent, Mr. Wampler was held in custody by Kansas authorities for crimes committed there but had also been indicted for murder in Oklahoma. He sought release via habeas corpus arguing that his detention was illegal because he should be extradited to Oklahoma first before facing charges in Kansas due to an existing agreement between both states' governors regarding priority of prosecution. The court rejected this argument stating that such agreements did not supersede federal law which allows each state to prosecute its own cases independently without interference from other jurisdictions unless specifically provided by Congress or Constitutionally required (which it wasn't). Therefore, even if there were an agreement between two governors about who gets first crack at prosecuting a criminal suspect - as long as they are within their jurisdiction - it doesn’t have any legal bearing on how federal courts would view the situation.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill, Warden v. United States ex rel. Wampler, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to consider whether there had been a fair opportunity for a full and complete hearing in state court before federal intervention. He believed that if such an opportunity existed but wasn't taken advantage of by the petitioner, then federal courts should not intervene unless there is some exceptional circumstance showing gross injustice. In this case, he felt that no such circumstances were present and thus disagreed with granting habeas corpus relief on these grounds.