Recuse
to prevent a tie when voting on a case
Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Chief Justice would not preside over the US Supreme Court if he (or she) recuses himself from a case; is sick or otherwise disabled; is engaged in a Presidential impeachment trial; or is on trial in the Senate himself. In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Senior Associate Justice (the justice who has served on the Supreme Court longest) would take responsibility for the Court.
Fourth Chief Justice John Marshall, in the US Supreme Court case Marbury v Madison, (1803).
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney lead the US Supreme Court in 1857, and presided over the Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) case.
dissenting opinion
Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. ... The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who ... the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver.
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the Gibbons vs Ogden Case. This landmark decision invoked that the power to regulate interstate trade was granted via the constitution.
Absolutely not; that would be a conflict of interest and a breach of ethics that would not be permitted by the courts. If the case ever reached the US Supreme Court on appeal, and the the justice was, for some reason, still a member of the Court, he (or she) would be expected to recuse himself from participating in the case.
In the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional. This decision established the principle of judicial review in the United States.
Marbury v. Madison is the Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the court.
No it was not a supreme court case, but a state case because it was held in the local court