Louisiana House Bill HB53

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 "Madeline Deeters Campagna and Alberta Deeters Bonnin v. The Succession of Frank Bedell, et al" consolidated with "Leila Marie Tassin, et al v. Frank Bedell, et al"

Impact

The approval of this bill would directly affect the state's budget and accounting practices by allocating a specified amount towards settling a court judgment. This move reflects the state’s commitment to honoring lawful judgments and facilitating the payment of debts resulting from legal proceedings. It could also set a precedent for how future judgments are handled in terms of state appropriations, thereby impacting fiscal policy and legal liability concerning the state's operations.

Summary

House Bill 53 seeks to appropriate funds from the state’s general fund for the fiscal year 2011-2012, to fulfill a legal judgment related to two court cases. These cases involve the plaintiffs, Madeline Deeters Campagna and Alberta Deeters Bonnin, against multiple defendants including Frank Bedell and Custom Bus Charters, Inc. The total amount appropriated is $53,730.48, which covers direct compensation to the plaintiffs as well as additional funeral expenses, interest, and legal costs associated with the cases.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 53 appears to be largely supportive as it addresses a necessary legal obligation to settle a court case. While not highly controversial, it is recognized that such appropriations are essential to ensuring justice and accountability in government actions. There may be concerns among fiscal conservatives about budget allocations related to legal liabilities, but it seems that the general consensus favors compliance with judicial decisions.

Contention

Although the primary purpose of HB 53 is straightforward, financial implications may lead to discussions on budget allocation priorities. Critics, if any, might argue that funds could be used in more pressing areas of need within the state budget, suggesting that legal settlements should not take precedence over essential public services. Nevertheless, the bill is a procedural response to a legal obligation rather than a policy initiative, which may limit the level of contention surrounding its passage.