Moore v. Robbins 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 who had been convicted in a federal court. The case arose when a prisoner, William Moore, was convicted in a federal court in Arkansas and sentenced to two years in prison. Moore then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Arkansas state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Moore's release. The United States government then appealed the state court's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Supreme Court agreed with the government, holding that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with a federal court's decision. The Court's decision in Moore v. Robbins established that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still good law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Moore v. Robbins, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a crucial point of law. He argued that under Missouri state law, which was applicable in this case, title to land could not be acquired through adverse possession unless it was held for ten years without interruption or dispute from its rightful owner. In this case, however, there had been an undisputed period of only seven years before suit was brought by the original owner's heirs against those claiming ownership via adverse possession. Therefore Justice Field concluded that no valid claim of title could have been made and thus he would have reversed the decision below and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for plaintiff on his complaint as prayed for.