Pierce et al. v. Carskadon 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 habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Pierce, was convicted in a federal court for a crime and was sentenced to imprisonment. Pierce then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Pierce to be released from prison. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used in cases where the federal court had made an error in its decision. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in this case.

In Pierce et al. v. Carskadon, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a probate court's decision regarding the distribution of property in an estate. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and thus could not hear the appeal; however, Justice Field dissented on this point. He argued that under both common law and statutory authority, it was clear that appeals from probate courts were within the purview of state courts' appellate powers and should be heard by them as such. Furthermore, he noted that if there were any doubts about this matter then they should be resolved in favor of allowing access to justice for all parties involved rather than denying it outright due to technicalities or jurisdictional issues which may arise when dealing with complex legal matters such as those related to estates and inheritance rights.