Louisiana House Bill HB362

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the State of La. in the suit entitled "Ricky Crawford, et al. v. Diamond B. Construction, et al."

Impact

The successful passage of HB 362 would have significant implications for state finance and legal accountability. By appropriating funds for this judgment, the bill facilitates the state’s compliance with court rulings, reinforcing the principle that the state must honor legal obligations. This action reflects a commitment to resolving outstanding liabilities and maintaining the state's fiscal integrity. Furthermore, it highlights the role of the legislature in overseeing expenditures from the general fund, ensuring that funds are utilized appropriately for legal settlements.

Summary

House Bill 362 aims to appropriate funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2010-2011 to cover a judgment against the State of Louisiana in the case of 'Ricky Crawford and Lisa Crawford v. Diamond B. Construction, et al.' The appropriation ensures payment of $423,600, alongside additional legal costs that include interest accrued from various dates. The bill explicitly outlines the financial obligations resulting from the legal proceeding and seeks to authorize these expenditures through legislative approval.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment around HB 362 appears to be neutral, given its procedural nature focused on budgetary allocations rather than a contentious policy issue. Lawmakers engaged in discussions related to the bill may prioritize compliance with court mandates over partisan debate, viewing it as a necessity rather than a desirable or undesirable initiative. The emphasis on ensuring that the state meets its legal obligations tends to garner bipartisan support, as the importance of upholding justice and financial accountability tends to resonate across party lines.

Contention

While there are no overt points of contention flagged in the available discussions, there exists an implicit acknowledgment that appropriations for judgments can lead to debates over budget priorities and fiscal responsibility. Some legislators may express concerns about how these appropriations could affect other funding areas within the state budget. The financial ramifications of covering legal judgments could also raise questions about the state’s overall legal strategies and potential liability exposure in future cases.