Louisiana House Bill HB296

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Vincent Randolph on behalf of his minor children Heather, Hezekiah, Randolph and the Estate of Gwendolyn Randolph, and Dederrick Ruffin v. City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge ("City-Parish"), the State of Louisiana through the Dept. of Transportation and Development and Liberty Insurance Company"

Impact

The approval of HB 296 enables the state to fulfill its financial obligations resulting from court rulings, ensuring that claimants receive the funds awarded to them. This act is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and reinforces the state government's commitment to upholding legal judgments against public entities. By appropriating these funds, the bill contributes to the resolution of legal disputes and helps stabilize the financial relationships between citizens and government entities.

Summary

House Bill 296 primarily focuses on appropriating funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014. Specifically, the bill allocates a total of $66,461.49 to pay a consent judgment awarded in a case named 'Vincent Randolph on behalf of his minor children and others v. City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge', among other defendants. This funding is crucial to cover both the awarded judgment and the associated court costs arising from this legal matter.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around HB 296 is likely to be pragmatic, as it centers on financial restitution mandated by a court ruling. While the bill may not evoke passionate debate, it underscores the state's responsibility to comply with judicial outcomes. Stakeholders may view the swift allocation of funds as a positive step to restore faith in the legal system, although there may be underlying concerns regarding the implications of state-funded legal obligations.

Contention

While HB 296 itself appears straightforward, the underlying case could reflect broader issues regarding municipal liability and the financial strains on state budgets when compensating for judgments against local governments. Discussions around the bill may lead to questions about the adequacy of municipal liability insurance, the financial practices of local governments, and how such judgments impact taxpayer dollars. As these elements play out, further scrutiny and debate may arise regarding the state's legal and financial frameworks.