Hill v. Utah State Department of Workforce Services

2012 WL 3527885 (2012)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hill v. Utah State Department of Workforce Services

United States District Court for the District of Utah
2012 WL 3527885 (2012)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

William Hill (plaintiff), a disabled, elderly individual, received a $45,000 inheritance from his mother’s estate. Hill transferred the $45,000 to the Utah SNAP Fund, Inc. (the trust), the state’s pooled fund supplemental needs trust. The trust was comprised of two main accounts: (1) the pooled investment account that held all beneficiaries’ deposited funds; and (2) a sub-trust checking account into which investment account funds were periodically transferred to cover expenses incurred by trust beneficiaries. Trust beneficiaries, like Hill, had no control over the distribution or investment of trust funds, and reimbursement for incurred expenses was entirely in the trustee’s discretion. Assets held in the trust were excluded from consideration when a trust beneficiary’s eligibility for government assistance programs, like the Food Stamp Program (FSP), was assessed. After transferring the $45,000 to the trust, Hill applied for food stamps. Because Hill was elderly, his FSP eligibility was assessed using the net-income standard. The FSP denied Hill’s application because his net income exceeded the eligibility threshold. In calculating Hill’s net income, FSP included: (1) intra-trust transfers made by the trustee from the investment account to the sub-trust checking account; and (2) reimbursements Hill received from the trust covering utility bills, life insurance premiums, medical expenses, a bus pass, and clothing costs. Hill appealed FSP’s decision, and both the Utah State Department of Workforce Services (department) (defendant) and an administrative-law judge (ALJ) confirmed the denial. Hill then sought judicial review in federal district court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nuffer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership