Louisiana House Bill HB46

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Eisha Briggs Lee, et al v. State of Louisiana, et al"

Impact

The passage of this bill signifies a commitment from the Louisiana state government to uphold court decisions and financially support the outcomes of legal disputes involving state entities. By ensuring funds are available for the payment of the judgment, the bill reflects an intention to maintain public trust and accountability in the state's operations. The consent judgment payment will essentially resolve the claims made against the state, thus preventing further legal repercussions or financial liabilities resulting from the ongoing dispute.

Summary

House Bill 46 appropriates funds from the General Fund of the State of Louisiana for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 to cover a consent judgment related to a lawsuit entitled 'Eisha Briggs Lee, et al v. State of Louisiana, et al'. Specifically, the bill allocates a total of $650,000 to various claimants who are involved in this case. This appropriation underscores the state's fiscal responsibility in addressing legal judgments arising from actions taken by its agencies, such as the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD).

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HB 46 appears to be largely neutral, as it deals with the administrative function of appropriating funds rather than a controversial legislation with broad public implications. However, it highlights the ongoing responsibility of the state in settling claims resulting from its actions. While not likely to invoke significant opposition, the bill's focus on compensating those affected by state decisions does signal a recognition of the importance of legal recourse and restitution in the public sector.

Contention

One notable point of contention may arise in discussions around the appropriateness of fund allocations and whether the amount designated is justified based on the circumstances of the case. The bill's allocation of funds also raises questions about budgetary priorities and the ethical implications of spending public money as compensation for legal claims. While the bill is primarily administrative, stakeholders may debate the overall financial management of state resources in relation to legal judgments.