When Chief Justice Chase Rogers recused herself from the landmark same-sex marriage case Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health in 2007, she did so to avoid a conflict of interest.
That was the right thing to do. After all, her husband’s law firm, Robinson & Cole, had filed an amicus brief in the case supporting gay marriage. Through Edward O’Hanlan’s position as a partner at the firm, it could have been perceived that Rogers had received an indirect financial benefit from the case. The perception of conflict made her recusal a necessary, obvious remedy.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
