Louisiana House Bill HB1381

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/20/10
• Refer: 4/21/10

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the suit entitled "Kermit Roberson and Virginia Roberson v. DOTD"

Impact

The enactment of HB1381 will directly impact the budgetary allocations of the state of Louisiana, compelling the government to set aside funds specifically for legal judgments. This appropriation emphasizes the necessity for the state to address and settle disputes that arise, particularly those involving its own departments. Such financial obligations are common in governing practices, but they also underscore the complexity of managing state funds in the context of legal liabilities. This can set a precedent for similar appropriations in future litigation cases involving state agencies.

Summary

House Bill 1381 appropriates funds from the state general fund of Louisiana for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The bill specifically allocates a sum of $50,000 to cover the payment for a consent judgment resulting from the lawsuit titled 'Kermit Roberson and Virginia Roberson v. State of Louisiana, through Department of Transportation and Development'. This judgment is associated with legal action taken in the Eighth Judicial District Court, highlighting the state's responsibility to manage financial settlements arising from legal disputes involving its agencies.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB1381 appears to be procedural and non-controversial, as the bill deals with the fulfillment of a legal obligation rather than the introduction of new policies or regulations. Given that the bill addresses a direct payment for a judgment, discussions likely revolve around accountability and fiscal responsibility. While there is a recognition of the necessity to fund such payments, it may also evoke considerations about how state funds are utilized and the impacts of legal actions against public entities.

Contention

While there does not seem to be significant contention surrounding HB1381, it does raise discussions about the larger implications of state spending in the context of legal settlements. Any opposition likely stems from broader concerns over transparency and the allocation of state resources in the wake of judicial rulings. Legislators may debate the merits of funding decisions, especially if continual litigation necessitates larger appropriations, which can strain the state's budget and affect funding for other essential services.