Walter S.J. Wenger v. Canastota Central School District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the court may decline to appoint counsel for an incompetent person “when it is clear that no substantial claim may be brought on behalf of such party.”
• relying on the general rule that a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of her child
• child’s right to justice is so important that court has sua sponte duty to ensure the child’s interests are represented by a lawyer
• “[I]t is not in the interests of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non- attorneys.”
• where no party raised the issue of a child’s representation by a non-attorney, the district court was required to raise the issue sua sponte
• if non-attorney father “is unable on his own to find an attorney to represent his son,” and if “the court concludes that counsel should not be appointed for” the son, “the court should dismiss the claims brought on [the son’s] behalf without prejudice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).