Voss v. Fisher 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 was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Voss, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Voss sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. 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 government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Voss v. Fisher established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Voss v. Fisher, a case that addressed whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their negligence when they were acting as an agent of another party. Justice Field argued that the court should have found in favor of the defendant because he was only acting on behalf of his principal and had no direct control over how his actions would affect others. He further argued that it is unfair to hold someone responsible for damages if they are merely following orders from their employer without any knowledge or understanding of what those orders may lead to. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that holding agents accountable for negligent acts committed while under instruction from a principal would create too much uncertainty and potential liability issues which could ultimately harm businesses and individuals alike.