Louisiana House Bill HB67

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds to pay judgment against DOTD in "Danna N. Lawrence, et al v State of Louisiana, et al"

Impact

The enactment of HB 67 will have immediate fiscal implications on the Louisiana state budget, as it mandates the allocation of funds to fulfill a court judgment. This appropriation underscores the state’s obligation to cover damages awarded in lawsuits involving state entities. The funds will be drawn from the general fund for the fiscal year 2011-2012, potentially impacting other funding priorities depending on the budgetary constraints facing the state. The judgment also reflects the broader legal context in which state operations and their consequences can lead to financial obligations.

Summary

House Bill 67 focuses on the appropriation of funds from the state general fund to satisfy a legal judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Specifically, the bill appropriates $22,500 to address the consent judgment stemming from the case 'Danna N. Lawrence, et al v. State of Louisiana, et al'. This case was decided in the 22nd Judicial District Court and is significant in demonstrating the state's responsibility in covering legal costs arising from departmental actions. The bill outlines the financial obligations of the state government and highlights the necessary funding for legal compliance.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 67 is largely functional, reflecting the necessary procedural aspect of governmental finance regarding legal judgments. There may not be strong emotional reactions due to the nature of appropriations, as it deals primarily with meeting legal obligations rather than engaging with policy issues or controversial topics. The lack of public dissent or debate highlights the general acceptance of the need for state accountability in covering legal liabilities.

Contention

While HB 67 appears straightforward in its intent to provide funding for a judicial settlement, it may invite scrutiny regarding the circumstances that led to the lawsuit against the DOTD. Questions may arise about whether the state took appropriate actions to prevent similar legal issues in the future and about the management of the Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the allocation of funds in light of the judgment raises discussions on accountability and the transparency of state operations in relation to legal outcomes.