Louisiana House Bill HB249

Louisiana 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/21
• Refer: 3/29/21
• Refer: 4/12/21

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of a consent judgment against the state in the suit captioned Gerald R. White, et ux versus La. Dept. of Transportation and Development, et al.

Impact

The passage of HB 249 has implications for state laws concerning fiscal responsibility and adherence to legal settlements. By appropriating state funds effectively, the bill reinforces the principle that the state is accountable to fulfill its financial obligations arising from judicial decisions. This explicit allocation demonstrates a commitment to financial transparency and the importance of resolving legal disputes without further burdening the judicial system or incurring additional costs related to interest and other penalties.

Summary

House Bill 249, introduced by Representative Mike Johnson, is focused on the appropriation of funds out of the State General Fund for the specific purpose of satisfying a consent judgment in the case of Gerald R. White, et ux versus the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. The bill allocates a total of $150,000 from the state's funds for this payment, addressing compensation awarded to the plaintiffs in a legal dispute settled in August 2020. By specifying the amount and requirements for payment, the bill ensures that the state complies with legal obligations stemming from court rulings, thereby upholding judicial decisions within the state’s governance framework.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding HB 249 appears to be cooperative, as it is an administrative action aimed at fulfilling a court-mandated obligation. There is likely minimal contention associated with the bill since it primarily deals with the practical necessity of funding a court judgment rather than introducing controversial policy changes or contentious legal modifications. Stakeholders may appreciate the bill's purpose in settling a legal case, but discussions about the appropriateness of the funding mechanisms could emerge during legislative processes.

Contention

While the bill itself is straightforward, it does hint at broader themes in legislative discourse regarding state expenditure and compliance with legal judgments. Potential points of contention could arise around the adequacy of funding and how such judgments will impact future state budgets or appropriations. Additionally, the specifics of the consent judgment and if similar future settlements may lead to increased financial liabilities could generate dialogue among legislators and constituents.