Louisiana House Bill HB87

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the Department of Transportation and Development in the suit entitled "Joseph L. LeBlanc, Jr., et al v. State of Louisiana, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 87 is significant as it directly impacts the state budget and financial allocations for the fiscal year 2010-2011. By appropriating funds for this judgment, the state demonstrates its commitment to upholding judicial decisions and addressing legal liabilities that arise from actions taken by its departments. The bill ensures that the Department of Transportation and Development can meet its financial obligations without further legal complications, preserving the integrity of state operations.

Summary

House Bill 87 appropriates a sum of $320,000 from the state general fund to pay a consent judgment resulting from the lawsuit 'Joseph L. LeBlanc, Jr. v. State of Louisiana, et al'. The bill is specifically aimed at settling financial obligations incurred by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development related to this lawsuit, thus ensuring compliance with the judicial ruling. This appropriation is targeted at fulfilling the financial settlement as mandated by the Ninth Judicial District Court of Louisiana.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding Bill HB 87 appears to be pragmatic, as legislators recognize the necessity of adhering to court rulings, despite the additional strain on the state budget. While there might not be considerable public controversy or opposition expected regarding the payment of a lawful judgment, discussions in legislative sessions may touch upon broader fiscal concerns and the implications of state funding usage. Overall, the sentiment towards the bill is likely supportive among lawmakers who prioritize legal compliance.

Contention

One notable point of contention linked to HB 87 stems from the broader implications of appropriations on state finances. Some legislators may argue about the appropriate use of taxpayer funds, questioning whether such payments impact other necessary public services. However, the essential nature of this bill—to fulfill a legal settlement—limits the extent of contention, as compliance with court orders generally garners bipartisan support. The focus remains on ensuring the state can meet its commitments while balancing budgetary constraints.