Louisiana House Bill HB517

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Guy C. Sharpless v. La. Dept. of Transportation"

Impact

The bill's passage means that the state will officially recognize and fulfill its responsibility to pay the judgment awarded in the case. By appropriating these funds, the state aims to maintain its legal standing and avoid further legal complications that could arise from non-compliance. This action signifies a commitment to adhering to court decisions, reflecting on the state's governance and its handling of legal matters related to the Department of Transportation.

Summary

House Bill 517 is an appropriation bill that allocates funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2012-2013. Specifically, it appropriates the amount of $12,500 to cover a consent judgment resulting from the lawsuit 'Guy C. Sharpless v. Louisiana Department of Transportation, et al'. This payment is intended to resolve legal obligations stemming from this case, thus ensuring compliance with judicial requirements related to the judgment.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB 517 appears to be neutral to positive, given that the bill addresses a necessary obligation of the state to pay a court-ordered judgment. There are limited points of contention expressed in the available information, suggesting a lack of significant public or legislative opposition to the appropriation itself. Most discussions may focus on the importance of appropriate funding mechanisms for the state's legal responsibilities rather than the particulars of the case.

Contention

While there may not be prominent contention surrounding the bill, it raises awareness regarding the fiscal responsibilities of the state government in managing lawsuits involving state departments. Ensuring that such judgments are funded appropriately is crucial to prevent running afoul of court orders. Future considerations may involve discussions around how such judgments are funded and the processes leading to litigation against the state.