Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the state in the matter of "James Malone v. William Lambert, et al"
Impact
The passing of HB 1024 would directly affect state financial obligations concerning legal settlements. By appropriating these funds, the bill ensures that the state fulfills its legal responsibilities, thus preventing any potential default on the judgment. The allocation of these funds signifies the state's commitment to uphold the court's authority and address liabilities arising from litigation, which could set a precedent for how similar cases are managed in the future.
Summary
House Bill 1024 is an appropriations bill that allocates funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013 specifically to pay a consent judgment resulting from a lawsuit titled 'James Malone v. William Lambert, et al.' This judgment reflects legal claims involving several parties, including individuals and various insurance companies, alongside the state of Louisiana represented by the Department of Transportation and Development. The amount appropriated for this payment is $2,114.
Sentiment
The sentiment associated with the bill revolves around responsibly managing state finances and legal judgments. Generally, there appears to be a neutral sentiment, focusing more on the obligation to comply with the judicial decision rather than any substantial policy debate. The necessity of funding such judgments is often viewed as a routine governmental duty rather than a contentious issue, reflecting a consensus on the importance of upholding the rule of law.
Contention
While the bill may not have generated significant public contention, the essence of its contents can still raise discussions regarding state spending and fiscal responsibility. Critics might question the allocation of funds for legal judgments instead of other pressing needs, such as education or infrastructure. Thus, while there are no notable objections to the bill itself, the broader implications of such appropriations could lead to debates about budget priorities and use of public funds.
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the state in the matter of "James Blalock, et al v. Clive P Bridges, et al" consolidated with "Rochelle Carona v. Sate of Louisiana, et al" consolidated with "Clive Bridges v. DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgments in the matters of "James Ronald Fowler, Jr. v. State of Louisiana DOTD" and "Crystal Williams v. State of Louisiana DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgments in the matter of "James Blalock, et al v. Clive P. Bridges, III, et al" consolidated with "Rochelle M. Carona v. State of La., et al" conslidated with "Clive P. Bridges v. DOTD"
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the state in the matter of "Mardel Von Solow, et al, and Paul Williams Marks and Belinda Boutte Migues, et al v. DOTD"