Marquez v. Frisbie was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in another state. The case arose when a prisoner, Marquez, was held in a California prison on a charge of murder. Marquez sought a writ of habeas corpus from a court in Arizona, where he had been arrested. The Arizona court granted the writ, and Marquez was released from custody in California. The California Attorney General then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Arizona court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be granted by a court of the state in which the prisoner was held. The Court noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners held in the state in which the writ was issued. Therefore, the Arizona court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Marquez, who was held in California. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners held in the state in which the writ was issued. Therefore, the Arizona court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Marquez, who was held in California. The Court concluded that the Arizona court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Marquez, and the decision of the Arizona court was reversed.

In Marquez v. Frisbie, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration and in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated public policy by disregarding a statute prohibiting such contracts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding public policy considerations, he believed that there were other factors at play which should have been taken into account before deciding against enforcement of the agreement. He argued that since both parties had acted in good faith and relied on each other’s promises to their detriment, they should be allowed to recover damages for any losses suffered as a result of their reliance on one another’s promises or representations. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if courts were too quick to invalidate contracts based solely upon violations of statutes or public policies then individuals would become reluctant to enter into agreements out of fear they may not be able to rely on them later down the line.