Louisiana House Bill HB13

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/15
• Refer: 2/13/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Samuel D. Weaver and Susan Weaver, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Children, Samantha and Luke Weaver v. State of Louisiana through the DOTD"

Impact

The bill's approval results in the state of Louisiana fulfilling a financial obligation after a judicial ruling, thereby reinforcing the rule of law within the government’s obligations to its citizens. By appropriating funds to cover this judgment, the state also signals its commitment to settle legal disputes, reflecting an essential aspect of governmental responsibility in managing and resolving litigation. This forward step aims to compensate those affected by the actions of state entities, underscoring the importance of accountability.

Summary

House Bill 13 was introduced to appropriate funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2015-2016. Specifically, the bill allocates $240,000 to pay a consent judgment in the lawsuit titled 'Samuel D. Weaver and Susan Weaver, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Children, Samantha and Luke Weaver v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD)'. This indicates a direct financial responsibility of the state to settle a legal matter that has implications for impacted families and state financial management.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 13 predominantly emphasizes the necessity of honoring legal judgments, which is viewed positively as a responsible action by the state legislature. There may be varied opinions on the implications of such expenditures on the state budget, yet the overarching viewpoint supports the requirement for the state to address its financial liabilities resulting from lawsuits. Overall, it appears that lawmakers recognize the importance of settling legal obligations while scrutinizing where state funds are allocated.

Contention

Despite the generally supportive sentiment, notable points of contention may arise regarding budgetary constraints and the prioritization of state expenditures. Critics could argue that the appropriations for legal judgments could potentially detract from funding for other crucial programs and services. By focusing resources on settlements rather than prevention or early resolution of disputes, the state may face ongoing budgetary challenges, leading to debates on fiscal responsibility versus legal commitment.