Terry v. Little 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 was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Little, was held in a federal prison in the state of Arkansas. Little filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ and ordered Little's release. The United States 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 authority to issue it. The Court further held that the state court's order was void and that Little must remain in federal custody. The Court's decision in Terry v. Little established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal custody. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that state courts do not have the authority to issue it.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Terry v. Little, a case involving an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas. The majority held that under Arkansas law, a married woman was not entitled to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while riding on her husband's horse-drawn wagon when it overturned due to his negligence. Justice Field disagreed with this decision and argued that there is no legal principle or precedent which would prevent a wife from recovering damages in such circumstances. He further noted that if she were allowed to sue her husband directly, then she should also be able to sue him indirectly through another party who caused injury due to their own negligence. In conclusion, he stated that since there was nothing preventing Mrs. Little from bringing suit against Mr. Little’s employer (the defendant), then she should have been allowed recovery as any other plaintiff would have been permitted under similar circumstances regardless of marital status or gender discrimination laws at play during this time period in history