Louisiana House Bill HB366

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Lawrence Willis, et al. v. State of Louisiana, et al."

Impact

The passing of HB 366 allows for the state to address its financial responsibilities following a court ruling, thereby ensures that the plaintiffs receive the compensation deemed necessary by the court. By sourcing funds from the General Fund, the bill underscores the state's fiscal policy regarding legal liabilities and compensation mechanisms. This act signifies the state's compliance with judicial outcomes, emphasizing the legal principles governing compensation in cases involving state agencies and transportation claims.

Summary

House Bill 366 pertains to the appropriation of funds to cover a judgment against the State of Louisiana, specifically in the case 'Lawrence Willis, et al. v. State of Louisiana, et al.' The bill allocates a total of $30,750 for the plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence Willis and his minor children, Lacey and Laura Willis, as well as $9,625.54 to Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance, which is involved in a cross-claim related to the case. The funding is drawn from the state's General Fund for the fiscal year 2010-2011 and is directed towards fulfilling the state's financial obligation stemming from the judgment.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 366 appears to be practical and administrative, focusing on the need for the state to meet its legal obligations following a judgment. There doesn't seem to be a strong contention or polarized debate regarding the appropriations as the bill addresses a clear responsibility arising from judicial decisions. Lawmakers likely view the bill as a necessary step in upholding the legal process and ensuring justice for the affected parties.

Contention

While there are no overt points of contention highlighted in the bill's text, the nature of appropriating funds for a legal judgment can sometimes lead to discussions about state budget priorities. Stakeholders might question the impact of such appropriations on other budgetary needs or fiscal responsibilities. However, in this specific case, the focus remains on compliance with the court's ruling, which often reduces opportunities for broader debate.