Louisiana House Bill HB43

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/16
• Refer: 1/28/16
• Refer: 3/14/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for the payment of judgment in the matter of "Kirk Waters and Deborah Waters v. United Fire and Casualty Co., et al"

Impact

The appropriation of these funds reflects a broader commitment by the state to honor legal judgments and fulfill its obligations arising from court decisions. By ensuring that the state complies with the judgment, this bill aims to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in the judicial system. Although the amount being appropriated is relatively small in the context of the state budget, it underscores the legal principle that the state must acknowledge and respond to court orders.

Summary

House Bill 43 is focused on appropriating funds from the state general fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2016-2017. Specifically, it allocates the sum of $10,000 to address the payment of a consent judgment related to the court case 'Kirk Waters and Deborah Waters v. United Fire and Casualty Co., et al.' This bill serves to fulfill the state's financial obligation as mandated by the court ruling, which pertains to a specific legal dispute involving both the plaintiffs and certain defendants, including the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 43 is largely procedural rather than contentious. Given that appropriating funds to pay a court judgment is a standard legislative action within the purview of state responsibilities, there does not appear to be significant opposition or debate surrounding this bill. The nature of its content, being straightforward and focused on compliance rather than introducing new law, leads to a neutral sentiment among legislators.

Contention

While there are no notable points of contention detailed within the discussions of HB 43, one might expect such bills to occasionally prompt inquiries into the implications of funding judgments, particularly regarding state responsibilities and fiscal management. However, given the clarity of the bill's purpose, it does not seem to invoke significant debate or disagreement among lawmakers.