Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, right, complained publicly about comments made by Williams.

The Providence Journal / Bob Thayer

Standing over 6 feet tall, retiring Chief Justice Frank J. Williams has always cast an imposing presence in the courtroom. Now, his handling of some of the key cases of the last decade will leave a similar mark in the state’s legal annals.

Probably the biggest example came in July when the high court overturned a Superior Court jury verdict that ordered paint companies to pay what would have amounted to billions of dollars to remedy the harm caused by lead-based paints. In a unanimous decision by the court, Williams authored the section that held the paint companies could not be held liable because they sold a legal product generations ago and no longer have control over them.

“This Court is bound by the law and can provide justice only to the extent that the law allows,” Williams wrote. “This Court is powerless to fashion independently a cause of action that would achieve the justice that these children deserve.”

On the issue of casino gambling, Williams twice joined with two other justices in issuing advisory opinions that halted proposed ballot questions on whether to allow the Narragansett Indian Tribe and Harrah’s Entertainment to build a casino in West Warwick. Both times, in 2004 and 2005, Williams and his colleagues opined that the legislation that would allow the casinos ran afoul of the state Constitution, which requires that all gambling be run by the state.

The Narragansetts figured in other seminal moments in Williams’ career on the court, including several actions last year by the chief justice in the case of seven tribe members charged after a brawl broke out when the state police raided a tribal smoke shop in 2003.

Williams led the court when it issued an unprecedented directive last fall. Though the court’s rules say criminal cases are not eligible for mediation, Williams argued the case “cries out for mediation” and contended the court can change its rules since it wrote them in the first place.

The talks fell apart short of a plea agreement under sharp criticism from Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch and others in the legal community. A jury ultimately convicted three of the seven Narragansetts facing charges of misdemeanor counts after a six-week trial in Providence County Superior Court.

Williams also wrote a decision in which the court denied the Narragansetts’ request to compel Governor Carcieri’s testimony on whether troopers used reasonable force in the raid. “We are unable to fathom how the governor’s testimony, even if compelled, would be relevant to the theory of the defense that the state police used excessive force,” Williams wrote for the court.

In October of this year, comments by Williams sparked controversy after he told the governor and attorney general that lawyer Joseph S. Larisa Jr. could ably represent the Town of Charlestown and the state in arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court about land owned by the tribe. “Joe Larisa would be a superb advocate for not only the town’s position, but the state’s position,” Williams said in an interview. “No one can do it better.”

Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas complained publicly about Williams’ remarks. “It just gave me the impression that anything the tribe brings before that chief justice doesn’t have a prayer,” he said.

This year, Williams successfully intervened in a major labor dispute between Carcieri and the state’s largest employees union, Council 94, to resolve their contractual stalemate through mediation and arbitration. Although mediation failed, the sides brokered a four-year deal in October, less than 24 hours before they were set to begin arbitration.

In a landmark case testing whether same-sex couples married elsewhere could divorce in Rhode Island, Williams joined a 3-to-2 majority that said state law had not given the Family Court jurisdiction over such cases. One of the wives in that case has since moved to Massachusetts to establish residency and qualify for a divorce there, where marriage laws do not regard the gender of spouses.

Williams authored a 2004 decision that requires the attorney general to give reasons when rejecting someone’s application to carry a concealed weapon so a court can review the decision.

“The constitutional right to bear arms would be illusory, of course,” he wrote, “if it could be abrogated entirely on the basis of an unreviewable unrestricted licensing scheme.”

—With reports by staff writer Katie Mulvaney

pparker@projo.com