Louisiana House Bill HB280

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Robert Evangelist v. State of Louisiana through DOTD, et al"

Impact

The impact of HB 280 is primarily fiscal, as it directs state funds to a specific legal obligation, thereby influencing budget allocations for the fiscal year 2012-2013. By appropriating this amount from the general fund, the bill helps in fulfilling legal judgments which reflect the state's commitment to uphold the rule of law and enforce court mandates. Such actions are crucial for maintaining public trust in governmental operations and ensuring that legal rulings are honored promptly.

Summary

House Bill 280 appropriates funds from the state general fund to cover a payment of $20,000 related to a consent judgment in the legal matter titled 'Robert Evangelist v. State of Louisiana through DOTD, et al'. This bill is designed to address financial obligations stemming from legal judgments against the state ensuring that the state meets its obligations as dictated by court decisions. The effective date for this appropriation is July 1, 2012, indicating the timing of funds being allocated for this specific purpose.

Sentiment

Given that HB 280 pertains primarily to an appropriations matter, the general sentiment around it appears to be practical and focused on compliance rather than contentious debate. Since it addresses the state’s financial obligation to pay a judgment, both sides of the aisle may view it as necessary, albeit without strong advocacy or opposition typically seen in more controversial legislation. It is likely that legislators see this bill as a formality essential for fiscal responsibility.

Contention

While HB 280 does not seem to generate significant contention on its own, it underscores the ongoing discussions related to state financial management and accountability in settling legal claims. Any objection or concern would more likely arise from the broader context of funding sources and whether the state's budget can sustain additional appropriations without affecting other critical services. As it deals with a legal judgment, the bill primarily focuses on ensuring justice is upheld rather than ideological contestations.