42 U.S.C. § 1311
Public assistance payments to legal representatives
For purposes of subchapters I, X, XIV, and XVI, and part A of subchapter IV, payments on behalf of an individual, made to another person who has been judicially appointed, under the law of the State in which such individual resides, as legal representative of such individual for the purpose of receiving and managing such payments (whether or not he is such individual’s legal representative for other purposes), shall be regarded as money payments to such individual.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1970–2020 · leading case: Garcia v. Swoap, 63 Cal. App. 3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
Garcia v. Swoap, 63 Cal. App. 3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “§ 606 (b)(2); [3] it may appoint a guardian or legal representative to receive and manage the funds for the child, 42 U.S.C. § 1311 ; or [4] it may remove a child from a home upon a judicial determination that the parent is not using the funds for the benefit of the child, 42 U.”
Cooper v. Laupheimer, 316 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Pa. 1970). “§ 606 (b) (2); it may appoint a guardian or legal representative to receive and manage the funds for the child, 42 U.S.C. § 1311 ; or it may remove a child from a home upon a judicial determination that the *270 parent is not using the funds for the benefit of the child, 42 U.”
Morrell v. Flaherty, 449 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. 1994). “§ 606 (b)(2)], or in seeking appointment of a guardian or legal representative as provided in section 1111 [ 42 U.S.C. § 1311 ], or in the imposition of criminal or civil penalties authorized under State law if it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that such…”
Olson v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D.N.D. 2017). “The ACA’s religious exemption refers back to the FICA/SECA religious exemption: [“Applicable individual”] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under [ 42 U.S.C. § 1311 (d)(4)(H)] of the [ACA] which certifies that such…”
North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands v. Andrus, 671 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1982). “The equal footing doctrine provides that states admitted after the first 13 have the same rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and absolute title over sovereign lands as their predecessors.”
Windeknecht v. Missouri Dept. of Mental Health (E.D. Mo. 2020). “§ 791 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1311 (3).” Id. ¶ 4 . Although plaintiff divides his amended 2 Plaintiff lists these defendants in the caption of his complaint and the words “et al.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.