England v. Gebhardt was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between England and Gebhardt, in which England agreed to pay Gebhardt a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of property for more than a certain amount. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power, and that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in bad faith or with the intent to defraud. The Court's decision in England v. Gebhardt established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of the law.

In England v. Gebhardt, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a resident of that same state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did have such jurisdiction and affirmed its decision. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it violated the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause which requires states to give full faith and credit to judicial proceedings in other states. He argued further that if each state were allowed to exercise jurisdiction over citizens of other states then there would be no uniformity or consistency among them as far as legal matters are concerned; instead, every case would require examination on its own merits with respect to jurisdictional issues. Furthermore, he noted how allowing one state’s courts authority over citizens from another could lead to unequal treatment under law since some laws may not apply equally across all jurisdictions due solely based on residency status rather than any actual wrongdoing committed by those individuals involved in litigation before said courts.