Louisiana House Bill HB287

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Harry L. Phillips and Annette Nunez v. James H. Trent, III, Flying J. Inc. of Utah, Zurich Insurance Company and State of La., DOTD"

Impact

The approval of HB 287 will ensure that the judgment payment is made, which can be significant for the parties involved in the lawsuit. It reflects the state's responsibility to uphold the financial commitments resulting from legal judgments. By using state funds, it underscores the state's role in ensuring that legal proceedings and their outcomes are adequately addressed, which can strengthen public trust in the state's judicial process and financial management.

Summary

House Bill 287 is legislation from Louisiana that appropriates funds for the payment of a legal judgment resulting from a lawsuit involving Harry L. Phillips and Annette Nunez against several parties, including the State of Louisiana's Department of Transportation and Development. The bill specifies an appropriation of $30,000 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013 to cover this consent judgment. This measure is straightforward and primarily serves the purpose of fulfilling a financial obligation resulting from a judicial decision.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 287 is likely neutral, as the appropriations for legal settlements often do not evoke strong political opinions. Given that the bill is focused on a specific judgment rather than broader policy implications, legislators may view it as a necessary administrative action rather than a contentious issue. As the bill deals with fulfilling a legal requirement rather than creating new laws or altering existing regulations, it is less likely to engender heated debates.

Contention

While there appears to be no major contention associated with HB 287, discussions around appropriations of state funds for legal judgments can sometimes raise issues regarding fiscal responsibility and the implications of past legal decisions. Lawmakers might debate the fairness and rationale behind such payments, particularly in larger contexts where budget cuts are considered. However, since this bill addresses a singular judgment, it seems unlikely to attract substantial controversy.