Louisiana House Bill HB201

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Cristy A. Riordan v. Newlynne L. Herring and Allstate Insurance Company and the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development"

Impact

The passage of HB 201 will have a direct impact on the state budget, as it involves the allocation of taxpayer funds to settle a legal case. By appropriating these funds, the state ensures compliance with the judgment and upholds its legal responsibilities. This act reinforces the state's commitment to resolving legal disputes efficiently, reducing the possibility of further legal complications or interest charges that might arise from delayed payment.

Summary

House Bill 201, introduced by Representative Foil, focuses on appropriating funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014. Specifically, it designates a sum of $1,500 to cover the consent judgment in the legal case titled 'Cristy A. Riordan v. Newlynne L. Herring and Allstate Insurance Company and the State of Louisiana.' This case has been noted in the 21st Judicial District Court of Tangipahoa Parish and centers on a settlement that requires the state to fulfill its financial obligations arising from the lawsuit.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 201 appears to be neutral, primarily due to its technical nature as an appropriations bill. Since the bill's purpose is to fulfill a legal obligation rather than to introduce new legislation or policy changes, discussions in legislative circles likely focused on ensuring that appropriate governance and budgetary protocols were observed. There were likely no significant points of contention amongst lawmakers, as the necessity to pay legal judgments is typically accepted.

Contention

Despite the lack of major opposition, minor concerns may arise from scrutinizing the appropriations process and ensuring transparency in how state funds are allocated. While the bill's straightforward nature minimizes disputes, questions of fiscal responsibility, particularly concerning the amounts being appropriated for legal settlements, could be raised. It highlights a broader conversation about how state resources are managed and the implications of legal actions taken against the state.