Title: Matter of Webb
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 235, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF DAVID QUINTIN 
§  No. 235, 2011 
WEBB FOR A WRIT OF  
 
§ 
MANDAMUS 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 27, 2011 
  Decided: July 11, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the petition of David 
Quintin Webb for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, David Webb, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of 
mandamus directing the Court of Chancery to:  (i) recuse the Master in 
Chancery from acting in the case below;  (ii) find that the respondents in the 
case below are precluded from arguing that he is not the legal heir of John 
Webb; and (iii) order that his name be added to the Letters of Administration as 
a legal heir to the Estate of John L. Webb.  We find that Webb’s petition 
manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the 
petition must be dismissed. 
(2) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to 
perform a duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to the 
2 
 
performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1  A writ of 
mandamus will not be issued “to compel a trial court to perform a particular 
judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control 
of its docket.”2  A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the present 
circumstances because recusal is a matter that is within the discretion of the 
judicial officer whose recusal is sought.3  Moreover, this Court will not compel 
the Court of Chancery to rule in Webb’s favor on the substantive issues below.  
These are matters Webb may raise in any appeal from a final order issued by 
the Court of Chancery in the proceedings below.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance 
of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DENIED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
 
                                                          
 
1In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
2 Id. 
3 Id.