Randall v. Krieger 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 two parties, Randall and Krieger, in which Randall agreed to pay Krieger 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 without a license. 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 a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court's decision in Randall v. Krieger 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 has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of state laws.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Randall v. Krieger, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of California law and that it should be reversed. He argued that under California law, a contract for personal services could not be assigned to another person without the consent of both parties involved. The plaintiff had contracted with a third party to provide labor services on his behalf, but he did not have permission from either himself or the defendant to assign those rights over to someone else. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that there was no valid assignment and thus no basis for recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant as they were never bound together by any contractual agreement. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been an assignment made between them at some point in time prior to this case being brought before court, such an arrangement would still have been invalid due to its lack of consideration - meaning neither party received anything tangible out of it - which is required for all contracts under California law at this time period.