Louisiana House Bill HB678

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the suit entitled "Brittany Phillips v. State of La. DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 678 will directly impact the state's fiscal management by reallocating funds for legal settlements, which may affect the broader budgetary considerations within the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. By ensuring that the judgment is paid, the state mitigates the risk of accruing additional penalties or interest that could result from non-payment. Such appropriations are crucial for preserving the financial health of various state departments and ensuring that public funds are effectively utilized.

Summary

House Bill 678 pertains to the appropriation of funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for payment related to a legal judgment. Specifically, it allocates the amount of $10,000 for the consent judgment in the case of 'Brittany Phillips v. State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development'. This bill is an essential measure to ensure that the state fulfills its financial obligations stemming from judicial decisions, thus maintaining the integrity of state operations and legal compliance.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding HB 678 likely reflect a general sentiment of obligation and accountability within state governance. The legislative intent appears to be widely accepted, as providing for the payment of judgments is typically seen as a necessary duty to uphold the law and support the state's judicial system. However, the implications of reallocating funds may lead to some debates among legislators about prioritizing future budgets or funding for other services.

Contention

No significant points of contention were noted in the legislative transcripts regarding HB 678. As it primarily deals with the appropriation of funds for a specific judgment, the nature of the discussion was likely focused on the necessity of complying with the judgment rather than on opposing views. However, this could open a conversation about state funding priorities and whether sufficient resources are available to meet ongoing legal obligations without compromising other essential state services.