Legal Opinion
Blaisdell v. City of Rochester
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided May 28, 1992No. 90-613PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrock, C.J.
The plaintiff, George Blaisdell, relying upon Supreme Court Rule 38, Canon 3 (Code of Judicial Conduct), requested that a superior court justice recuse himself and vacate orders made in three related cases involving the plaintiff and the defendant, City of Rochester (city). The Superior Court Justice (Nadeau, J.) granted the plaintiff’s motion to recuse himself from future participation, but denied the request to vacate any orders previously issued by him or any other judge in the two related cases. For the reasons that follow, we vacate all orders and remand for new proceedings.
On April…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Pepsico, Inc., and Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Honorable Thomas R. McMillen Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Scott v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Home Placement Service, Inc. v. Providence Journal Company, Home Placement Service, Inc. v. Providence Journal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Rogers v. BradleyTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. BaderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
- Douglas v. DouglasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1999
- McNair v. McNairSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2004
- Christie v. City of El CentroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.