Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Joseph S. Lessard et al. v. DOTD et al.
Impact
The enactment of HB 272 is significant as it authorizes the state to fulfill its legal obligations stemming from the judgment, thus preventing further legal complications that might arise from non-payment. By ensuring that funds are appropriated for this purpose, the bill reinforces the state's commitment to uphold judicial decisions and settle claims against it. Therefore, it potentially mitigates additional costs associated with ongoing litigation or penalties that could occur if the judgment is not honored in a timely manner.
Summary
House Bill 272 is an appropriations measure introduced in the Louisiana legislature, aimed at securing funds for the payment of a consent judgment involving the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development. The bill allocates a total of $1.1 million from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021 to cover this judgment, which concerns a legal case against the state along with several individuals related to the Department and a parish. The bill outlines that the payment shall include principal, interest, court costs, and expert witness fees as awarded in the judgment, ensuring a comprehensive coverage of financial obligations resulting from the legal settlement.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 272 appears to be generally positive among lawmakers, as there is a consensus on the necessity of fulfilling court-ordered judgments to maintain the credibility of state governance. While there may not be extensive public discourse captured in the discussions, the bill's passage reflects a pragmatic approach to addressing legal obligations rather than a contentious legislative battle. This is indicative of a generally cooperative legislative environment when it comes to matters of judicial funding.
Contention
One notable point of concern that might arise, however, pertains to the specificity and management of such appropriations. While the bill dictates clear provisions for the payment process, critics might question the implications regarding the prioritization of state funds and whether such large appropriations could divert resources from other essential services or projects. Additionally, the provision that prohibits interest from accruing post-enactment could be contentious, depending on the perspectives regarding state financial management and liability.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Lucretia L. Garrett v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Adam Fitzgerald et al. v. Andrew Scott Barker et al. c/w Reaka Windham v. Liberty Mutual et al.