Louisiana House Bill HB9

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/21/16
• Refer: 12/21/16
• Refer: 3/14/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Judith S. Legendre and Wilton Clay Legendre v. Madden Contracting Co., Inc., et al"

Impact

Should HB9 be enacted, it will formally ensure that the financial obligation arising from the judgment is fulfilled, thus preventing any further legal repercussions for the state or the DOTD. The bill, effective from July 1, 2016, emphasizes the importance of the legislature's role in managing state finances and legal settlements. This appropriative action is a reflection of the state government's obligation to handle judgments that involve its departments and the associated financial implications stemming from such cases.

Summary

House Bill 9 (HB9), sponsored by Representative Reynolds, is a legislative measure aimed at appropriating funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The bill specifically allocates $30,600 to satisfy a consent judgment against the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) in the case titled 'Judith S. Legendre and Wilton Clay Legendre v. Madden Contracting Co., Inc., et al.' This legislation underscores the state's responsibility to cover legal liabilities that arise from its operations, thereby addressing grievances brought forth by private entities where the state has been found liable.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB9 is largely procedural and administrative. Since it deals primarily with the appropriation of funds for a judicial ruling, there is minimal controversy associated with it. Most legislative discussions regarding this type of bill typically center around fiscal responsibility and ensuring that the state's legal commitments are met rather than expressing political contention or divisive opinion. Consequently, legislators may view such appropriations as necessary actions to uphold the integrity of state governance.

Contention

While there aren't any notable points of contention reported for HB9, such appropriations in general can occasionally lead to debates about budget allocation and prioritization of state funds. Lawmakers may discuss the larger implications of funding legal judgments, especially in contexts where financial resources are limited. The passage of HB9 reflects a consensus on the importance of honoring judicial outcomes, though it may not be without discussions regarding overall state budgeting and financial health.