Robb v. Connolly 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, Robb and Connolly, in which Robb agreed to pay Connolly a certain sum of money in exchange for Connolly's services. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited such contracts. The state court enforced the contract, and Connolly sued Robb for the money. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, despite the fact that it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was not intended to prevent the enforcement of contracts, but rather to protect the public from fraud and other abuses. The Court also noted that the state court had the authority to enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes, as long as the contract was not illegal or against public policy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract between Robb and Connolly, despite the fact that it was made in violation of a state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was not intended to prevent the enforcement of contracts, but rather to protect the public from fraud and other abuses.

In the case of Robb v. Connolly, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the lower court's decision should be affirmed. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1867 federal statute and found that it did not provide for any damages to be awarded against a state or its officers for acts done under color of law. Instead, he believed that Congress had intended only to allow individuals to sue states directly in cases where they were deprived of their constitutional rights without due process. Furthermore, Justice Field contended that allowing such suits would open up too many potential claims against states and could lead to "a vast amount of litigation" between them and citizens who felt wronged by state officials' actions. Ultimately, his dissent was unsuccessful as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robb on this issue; however, his arguments remain relevant today when considering how much power individual citizens have over their government entities.