Louisiana House Bill HB122

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "David Gibson v. Jack Lawton, Jr., Lawton Ranch, LLC and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, State of Louisiana, through the DOTD, and the Parish of Calcasieu"

Impact

The passage of HB 122 will have a direct financial impact on the Louisiana state budget. By approving this appropriation, the state acknowledges its obligation to compensate for the legal judgment, which reflects its ongoing fiscal responsibilities. This allocation is intended to ensure that the state can fulfill its commitments in legal matters, thus avoiding potential delays or complications that might arise from failing to make timely payments.

Summary

House Bill 122 is an appropriation bill that allocates funds from the state general fund of Louisiana for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The specific amount appropriated is $6,305.32, designated to pay a consent judgment in the legal case 'David Gibson v. Jack Lawton, Jr. et al.' This case involves multiple parties, including the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the Parish of Calcasieu, demonstrating the state's responsibility in settling legal obligations arising from various claims and lawsuits.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 122 appears to be largely neutral, as it deals primarily with the administrative action of funding a legal judgment. There are not significant opposing viewpoints or public contention noted within the bill's context. Typically, bills of this nature receive bipartisan support as they reflect necessary expenditures to address existing legal obligations rather than the introduction of new policy or regulation.

Contention

While there may not be notable contentions directly associated with this bill, it symbolizes the broader issues of state financial management and accountability in legal matters. Ensuring that the state can efficiently manage and settle legal claims is crucial, as it impacts public trust in the judicial and governmental processes. Despite its neutral sentiment, discussions about the sourcing of funds and management of the budget in the face of such appropriations might surface, especially in the context of resource allocation within the state.