Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the state in the suit captioned Matthew Wooley et al. versus State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Impact
The bill contributes to the state's legal financial obligations and defines how these funds will be administered for payment. It establishes that payments shall include principal, interest, court costs, and expert fees as determined by the original judgment. A significant aspect of this legislation is the provision that prohibits the accrual of interest on the judgment after the effective date of the bill, thereby potentially safeguarding the state's financial resources by capping additional costs related to the judgment. This effectively emphasizes accountability in how the state settles legal disputes.
Summary
House Bill 250, introduced by Representative Mike Johnson, focuses on appropriating funds for the payment of a consent judgment resulting from a legal case involving the State of Louisiana and the plaintiffs Matthew Wooley, Adrian Wooley, and Jason Wooley. The bill specifically allocates $220,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021 to fulfill this judgment, which was finalized on April 21, 2020. The covered judgment pertains to a lawsuit against the state, highlighting the financial responsibility of state resources in addressing legal settlements.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 250 is generally neutral, as this type of appropriations bill does not typically provoke strong emotions. However, there may be concerns regarding the allocation of state funds, especially in light of competing budgetary needs within different sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Fiscal responsibility and the prioritization of state spending may arise as topics of discussion among legislators and the public, especially in the context of ongoing financial constraints faced by the state.
Contention
Notable points of contention tied to HB 250 could stem from debates about the implications of government settlements and the transparency of how funds are allocated for legal judgments. Concerns may arise regarding whether enough oversight exists in managing state fund disbursements in relation to legal liabilities. Additionally, legislators discussing the bill may express differing views regarding the appropriateness of government spending in this context, reflecting broader concerns about government accountability and financial stewardship within the state administration.
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.
Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the State in the suit captioned Linda D. Weaver, et vir vs. State of La., Dept. of Transportation and Development
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Patricia Lazare et al. vs. State of La. through the Dept. of Transportation and Development et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Brooke Laborde v. State of Louisiana, through the Dept. of Transportation and Development et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of a consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development v. Martin T. Frey et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Tabitha Beebe et al. v. State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Parria et al. v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Transportation and Development