In O'Neal v. Kirkpatrick, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court's decision to deny an appeal for a writ of error was not subject to review by the federal courts. The case involved two parties who had entered into a contract in which one party agreed to pay money owed on certain notes and mortgages held by another party. After failing to make payment, the other party sought relief from a state court through an appeal for writ of error but was denied due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then appealed this denial in federal court, arguing that it violated his rights under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 and Amendment 14 Section 1 of the Constitution; however, these claims were rejected as well since they did not fall within any recognized category or class mentioned in those provisions. Ultimately, it was determined that such decisions are beyond judicial review and must be accepted as final judgments unless there is some extraordinary circumstance present which would warrant further examination by higher authorities.

In O'Neal v. Kirkpatrick, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had granted state courts concurrent jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states; secondly, he argued that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, they should be assumed to have intended for state courts to have such power as part of their inherent authority under the Constitution. He concluded by stating his belief that allowing state courts concurrent jurisdiction would promote justice and harmony among all parties involved in interstate disputes.