Louisiana House Bill HB1000

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/12
• Refer: 3/21/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Van Jackson, on behalf of her minor child Donesha Merrick v. Charlene Jackson, Keyonta Jackson, Parish of Plaquemines, La. DOTD, USA Agency Insurance Company, and XYZ Insurance Company"

Impact

The approval of this bill would reaffirm the state's commitment to fulfilling its financial obligations as determined by the courts. By appropriating the necessary funds, Louisiana ensures that it complies with the legal rulings pertaining to cases that involve state jurisdictions, thereby maintaining the integrity of the legal process. This financial allocation is particularly necessary to address claims that may arise from state actions and reflects on how state funds are utilized to resolve disputes.

Summary

House Bill 1000 appropriates funds out of the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 to cover the payment of a consent judgment related to the case of 'Van Jackson, on behalf of her minor child Donesha Merrick v. Charlene Jackson, et al'. The bill authorizes a sum of $10,000 specifically designated for this legal settlement, indicating the state's responsibility to finance judgments that result from legal claims involving its departments and agencies.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1000 appears to lean towards responsibility and accountability, as it addresses a specific legal judgment that the state is obligated to pay. There may be a broad consensus in support of fulfilling such judgments to uphold the rule of law, though potential dissent could arise regarding the allocation of taxpayer funds for settlements. The bill does not seem to invoke significant controversy, as it pertains to a pre-existing judgment rather than new legislation or regulatory changes.

Contention

While there are no notable points of contention closely associated with HB 1000 based on the provided information, discussions may arise over how often the state faces such legal judgments and the implications for the budget. There may be an underlying concern regarding preventive measures to avoid further legal claims against the state, thereby impacting future appropriations. Nevertheless, the bill primarily focuses on a specific case rather than broader systemic issues.