Washington State Department of Social & Health Services v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that cogent “administrative interpretations ... not [the] products of formal rulemaking ... warrant respect”
• holding that under § 407(a) only a formal legal proceeding similar to garnishment or attachment counts as “legal process”
• holding that the appointment of a state department as the representative payee of a beneficiary cannot violate § 407(a), since the Social Security Act expressly contemplates such a role for the department
• holding that cogent “administrative interpretations . . . not [the] products of 56 Before the district court, the Coalition relied on 5 U.S.C. 557(d)(1) formal rulemaking . . .warrant respect”
• noting that the Social Security Ad- ministration’s Program Operations Manual System’s defi- nitions of “legal process” were “not products of formal rulemaking, [but] they nevertheless warrant respect”
• holding “that a representative payee serves the beneficiary’s interest by seeing that basic needs are met, not by maximizing a trust fund attributable to fortuitously overlapping state and federal grants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).