Kibbe v. Ditto et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Kibbe, sought to have the state court issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court to compel the latter to hear a case that had been dismissed by the federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the plaintiff's complaint. The Court further held that the state court lacked the power to review the decisions of the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court, and that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed.

Justice Miller delivered the dissenting opinion in Kibbe v. Ditto et al., arguing that the majority had erred in its decision to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that, under California law, when an action is brought against multiple defendants and one defendant pays more than their share of damages awarded by a jury, they are entitled to contribution from other defendants for any amount paid beyond what was due them according to their proportionate liability. The majority had held otherwise and Justice Miller disagreed with this interpretation on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it would be inequitable for one defendant who has already paid more than their fair share not to receive contribution from others; secondly, he noted that such a ruling would lead to confusion as courts struggle with how much each party should pay if there were multiple judgments against different parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Ultimately, Justice Miller concluded his dissent by noting his disagreement with the majority's conclusion and urging them instead "to sustain rather than overrule" established precedent set forth by state courts on this issue.