Louisiana House Bill HB611

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Thomas J. Averette v. the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, now BNSF Railway Company, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development and the parish of Acadia"

Impact

The passage of HB 611 will have a direct impact on state financial management, particularly in how appropriated funds are utilized for legal settlements. By designating resources to pay this judgment, the bill reflects the state's responsibility in legal matters involving public entities and transportation infrastructure. It ensures that the judgment is honored, which could also prevent further financial liabilities for the state should the judgment remain unpaid.

Summary

House Bill 611 aims to appropriate funds from the state General Fund to cover a consent judgment from a lawsuit involving Thomas J. Averette and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, along with the State of Louisiana and the parish of Acadia. Specifically, it allocates a total of $10,000 for this judgment, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court. The bill outlines the financial commitment and legal implications for the state in fulfilling this obligation.

Sentiment

Sentiment surrounding HB 611 is neutral to positive, as it addresses a necessary financial obligation rather than a divisive policy issue. Since it concerns the appropriation of funds rather than the introduction of new regulations or policies, discussion may be limited, and stakeholders may generally support the resolution of legal claims against the state.

Contention

While there may not be notable contention surrounding the bill itself, as it predominantly deals with the allocation of already appropriated funds, it could raise questions related to the broader implications of state financial responsibility. Critics of government spending may express concerns about the appropriateness of state funds being used to settle litigation rather than being allocated to other pressing public needs or infrastructure projects.