Louisiana House Bill HB401

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Todd Foles, Faith Landry and Cheryl Sedotal, individually and on behalf of the deceased, Jeanne Foles v. State of Louisiana Department of Highways, the parish of Assumption and ABC Contractor"

Impact

The appropriated funds signify an ongoing judicial obligation for the state, reflecting the financial accountability that the state must fulfill in light of legal settlements. This action ensures that necessary payments to affected parties are met, which can influence the state’s fiscal health and budgetary priorities. By addressing this case formally through an appropriation, it illustrates the state's commitment to handling claims judiciously and reinforcing its role in managing liabilities stemming from its activities and operations.

Summary

House Bill 401 is a legislative act that appropriates funds from the state general fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2015-2016. Specifically, it allocates a sum of $25,000 to settle a consent judgment arising from a lawsuit titled 'Todd Foles, Faith Landry and Cheryl Sedotal, individually and on behalf of the deceased, Jeanne Foles v. State of Louisiana Department of Highways, the parish of Assumption and ABC Contractor'. The bill thus has a direct financial impact on state funds and is intended for the resolution of a legal claim against the state and its entities relating to this matter.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 401 appears to be neutral to positive as it relates to fulfilling a judicial mandate. Lawmakers may view the act as a responsibility of the state to uphold legal decisions made by the court, thereby reinforcing public trust in governmental accountability. While the fiscal implications might raise concerns regarding budget constraints, there does not appear to be significant contention specifically surrounding this bill, since its primary function is administrative rather than a policy change.

Contention

While the bill itself mainly involves the allocation of funds, potential points of contention could arise regarding the sourcing of these funds and the implications for the state’s broader financial planning. Questions could be raised about whether such appropriations could set precedents for future cases or impact funding availability for other state initiatives and programs. However, without significant public dissent or active opposing arguments documented in the discussions, the level of contention appears to be minimal.