Louisiana House Bill HB304

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Provides for payment of consent judgment against DOTD in the suit entitled "Riffe v. State of La., DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 304 will ensure that the state fulfills its financial responsibilities concerning the court's decision in the aforementioned lawsuit. This appropriation underscores the importance of legal compliance within state governance and its implications on public funding. By addressing the judgment proactively, the state aims to mitigate any potential further legal issues and ensure the plaintiffs receive the funds they are owed. This measure reflects a prioritization of settling legal obligations over potential fiscal fissures that could emerge from defaulting on such judgments.

Summary

House Bill 304 pertains to the allocation of state funds to pay a consent judgment resulting from a legal case entitled 'Riffe v. State of Louisiana, DOTD'. Specifically, the bill appropriates $2 million from the Louisiana General Fund for the fiscal year 2010-2011, which is intended to be used for the amended consent judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Ronald L. Riffe and Patricia E. Riffe. This action represents a significant fiscal decision by the state authorities in response to a legal obligation arising from the case.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 304 appears to be neutral, as it mostly involves a procedural financial appropriation without substantial opposition or support highlighted in the discussions. Legislators recognize the necessity of upholding judicial decisions and fulfilling the state's financial obligations. The lack of contentious debate indicates a consensus on the need to promptly settle the judgment to avoid further complications, promoting responsible fiscal governance.

Contention

As the bill deals specifically with budget appropriations to settle a legal matter, one point of contention could arise regarding the allocation of funds from the General Fund. Lawmakers might debate the implications of such expenditures on other budgetary allocations. However, the absence of recorded opposition in the summaries suggests that the primary consideration is compliance with court rulings rather than substantial disagreements over budgetary priorities.