Louisiana House Bill HB137

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Delilah Howard Smith and Johnnie Earl Smith v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Susan Clyde McAdams, Don Randall McAdams, Jr., and James Carr McAdams"

Impact

This bill is likely to have minimal direct impact on state laws but serves as an example of how the state government handles financial obligations resulting from legal disputes. By appropriating funds for this judgment, it illustrates the state's commitment to fulfill its legal obligations and liabilities. This type of appropriation is critical for maintaining trust between the state and its citizens, as well as upholding the state's legal responsibilities.

Summary

House Bill 137 appropriates $30,000 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014 to cover a consent judgment in the case 'Delilah Howard Smith and Johnnie Earl Smith v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, et al.' The funds are designated specifically for settling this legal matter, which has implications for how the state manages and allocates its financial resources in light of legal liabilities. As such, the bill functions as part of the state's financial governance and accountability mechanisms.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB 137 appears to be neutral, primarily focused on the need to appropriate funds for legal obligations. There does not seem to be significant opposition or support from the public or lawmakers regarding this specific bill, as it addresses a necessary payment rather than introducing new policies or regulations. It is viewed more as a procedural necessity than a legislative initiative stirring debate.

Contention

There are no notable points of contention surrounding this bill as it primarily deals with an obligation based on a consent judgment. Its straightforward nature means it does not engage in broader policy issues that would elicit differing opinions among legislators or public sentiment. However, it does highlight the complexities of state budgeting and financial accountability in the face of legal disputes.