In re Wolenski
3d Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Travis Gower v. Daniel Clifford 3rd Cir.
- 2025Michael Robinson v. 3rd Cir.
- 2025Gaetano Dianese v. 3rd Cir.
- 2025Travis Gower v. 3rd Cir.
- 2025Hartmann D. Del.
- 2025Ken Swenson, I v. Clyde Vedder 3rd Cir.
- 2025DIAZ v. RADCLIFF W.D. Pa.
- 2025Anderson v. Jennings D. Del.
- 2024James Coppedge v. 3rd Cir.
- 2024Justin De La Cruz Martinez v. Katherine Emery 3rd Cir.
Cites 1 statute
- Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
Cites 1 case
- Green v. United States
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In re Henry V. WOLENSKI, Appellant.
Attorneys
- Henry Y. Wolenski, pro se.
- Domenic D. Jerome, Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, Pa., for appellee.
Henry V. Wolenski, presently confined in the Farview State Hospital in Way-mart, Pennsylvania, filed a petition in the district court requesting that the Orphans’ Court of Delaware County be ordered to issue a decree and opinion on Wolenski’s petition for removal of the guardian of his estate. The petitioner also requested that a lawyer be appointed to protect his interests. This appeal was taken from the order of the district •court denying the petition.
Treating the papers filed by the petitioner as requesting the district court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling-action by a state official, it is clear that the district court had no jurisdiction to grant such relief. Until recently only the District Court for the District of Columbia had original jurisdiction of an action in the nature of mandamus. Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (C.A.3, 1960). In 1962 the Congress gave such jurisdiction to all Federal district courts, but only “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 76 Stat. 744, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361. Thus, the district court was without power to compel the Orphans’ Court to act in this matter.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.