Ives v. Sargent was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The case arose when the plaintiff, Ives, sought an injunction against the defendant, Sargent, who was a federal officer. Ives alleged that Sargent had violated his rights under the Constitution by arresting him without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving federal officers and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also held that the state court could not issue an injunction against a federal officer because it would be in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer and that the plaintiff's claim must be brought before a federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ives v. Sargent, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key issue in determining whether or not an individual was liable for damages caused by their negligence. He argued that it should be considered whether or not the defendant knew of any potential danger posed by their actions and if they did know, then they would be held responsible for any resulting damage. Furthermore, he argued that even if there was no knowledge of potential harm at the time of action taken, liability could still arise from subsequent events which revealed such risks were present but unknown when acting negligently. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for more consideration to be given to this important factor before assigning responsibility and awarding damages in cases like these where negligence is alleged.