Yonley v. Lavender was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could review a federal court's decision. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract. The defendant, Lavender, had obtained a judgment in a state court against the plaintiff, Yonley, for breach of contract. Yonley then filed a petition in the federal court to set aside the judgment, claiming that the state court lacked jurisdiction. The federal court granted the petition and set aside the judgment. Lavender then appealed the federal court's decision to the state court, arguing that the state court had the authority to review the federal court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to review the federal court's decision. The Court reasoned that the state court was bound by the decision of the federal court and could not review it. The Court also noted that the state court was not a court of appeals and did not have the power to review the federal court's decision. The Court's decision in Yonley v. Lavender established that state courts do not have the authority to review the decisions of federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been an important precedent in the area of federal court jurisdiction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Yonley v. Lavender, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting within his jurisdiction, as it would interfere with the power of Congress to regulate such matters. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some legal basis for issuing such an injunction, it could not be enforced by contempt proceedings since this would also interfere with congressional powers. Finally, Justice Field contended that while states may have concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters involving federal officers or agencies operating within their borders, they cannot exercise exclusive control over them without infringing on Congress' constitutional authority to make laws governing those areas of activity.