Louisiana House Bill HB393

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Grady Crawford Construction, Inc. of Baton Rouge and State of Louisiana, DOTD"

Impact

The passing of HB 393 would have a direct impact on state finances as it diverts $1,000 from the general fund to settle a court judgment. By appropriating these funds, the state acknowledges the legal findings and demonstrates a commitment to upholding judicial decisions related to contracts and agreements involving state agencies. This bill reflects the broader fiscal responsibilities of the state and reinforces the importance of complying with court mandates in a timely manner.

Summary

House Bill 393 seeks to appropriate funds from the state general fund to pay a consent judgment resulting from the case 'State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Grady Crawford Construction, Inc. of Baton Rouge and State of Louisiana, DOTD'. The bill specifies a total amount of $1,000 to be allocated for this purpose in the fiscal year 2012-2013. This legislative action is necessary to fulfill the state’s financial obligations arising from a legal ruling, ensuring that proper legal protocols and financial responsibilities are addressed.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 393 is likely to be neutral, as it primarily deals with fulfilling a legal obligation rather than introducing new laws or regulations. Since the amount is relatively small in terms of the overall state budget, there may not be significant public outcry or support for this bill. However, it serves as an important reminder of the financial ramifications of legal proceedings in which the state is involved.

Contention

While the bill might not evoke strong contention due to its nature, discussions surrounding the allocation of state funds could highlight the need for accountability in how public funds are utilized in settling legal disputes. Critics might argue that the state should seek to minimize such legal challenges to prevent future appropriations for similar judgments. The case itself may also raise questions about the state’s contractual obligations with private entities and the safeguarding of public funds against potential legal liabilities.