Robinson v. Anderson 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, Robinson and Anderson, in which Robinson agreed to pay Anderson a certain amount of money in exchange for Anderson's services. Anderson sued Robinson for breach of contract in a state court, and Robinson argued that the contract was void because it violated a state statute. The Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, despite the fact that it violated the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was not intended to invalidate contracts, but rather to protect the public from certain types of contracts. Therefore, the Court concluded that the state court had the authority to enforce the contract, and that Robinson was liable for breach of contract. The decision in Robinson v. Anderson established that state courts have the authority to enforce contracts that violate state statutes, as long as the statute was not intended to invalidate the contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that state courts have the authority to enforce contracts that violate state statutes.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Robinson v. Anderson, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding upon them both, regardless of whether it has been approved by a court or not. Furthermore, he asserted that if one party breaches their obligations under the contract then they are liable for damages to the other party as long as those damages were foreseeable at the time of entering into said agreement. In this case, Justice Field believed that Anderson had breached his contractual duties and thus owed Robinson compensation for any losses suffered due to such breach; however, since no court had previously approved or disapproved of this particular contract prior to its execution there could be no legal action taken against Anderson on these grounds. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that while it may have been wrong for Anderson to break his promise made in good faith with Robinson he could not be held legally responsible because there was no judicial approval beforehand which would have allowed him to do so without consequence.