In Vance v. Campbell et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court's decision to deny an appeal from a lower court was not reviewable by the federal courts, and thus could not be overturned on constitutional grounds. The case arose when William Vance brought suit against several defendants in Virginia state court for trespass and damages resulting from their alleged interference with his property rights. After losing at trial, he appealed to the highest appellate court in Virginia but was denied due to procedural errors made during his initial filing process. He then sought relief in federal district court, arguing that his right to due process had been violated by being denied access to an appellate forum without any legal justification or explanation as to why it had been refused him. However, after reviewing both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court found that because there were no constitutional issues involved—only matters of procedure—the denial of Vance's appeal did not violate any laws or principles established under U.S law and therefore could not be reviewed by a federal tribunal; instead it would have needed resolution within Virginia’s own judicial system before seeking redress elsewhere if necessary

Justice Nelson delivered the dissenting opinion in Vance vs. Campbell et al., arguing that the majority had misapplied existing law to reach their conclusion. He argued that a state court's decision should be respected by federal courts unless it is "palpably wrong" or violates some constitutional provision, neither of which was present here. The state court had found that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim and thus dismissed his case; Justice Nelson believed this ruling should stand as it did not violate any laws or rights of either party. Furthermore, he argued that if a federal court were to overturn such decisions on its own accord without clear legal justification, then states would have little incentive to follow established precedent and respect each other's rulings - something essential for maintaining harmony between them. In sum, Justice Nelson disagreed with the majority opinion because he felt they failed to properly apply existing law when evaluating this case and instead chose an arbitrary approach which could lead to further discord among states in future cases.