Louisiana House Bill HB310

Louisiana 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/30/21
• Refer: 3/30/21
• Refer: 4/12/21

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Kevin Brent Fontenot v. State of Louisiana

Impact

The passage of HB 310 would ensure that the state meets its financial responsibilities concerning this court-ordered judgment. By providing the necessary appropriation, the bill aims to close a chapter in ongoing legal proceedings and prevent interest from accruing on the judgment amount, thus safeguarding the financial interests of the state. It also clarifies how the payment will be processed, requiring proper documentation before any funds are disbursed.

Summary

House Bill 310 is focused on the appropriation of funds to pay a consent judgment resulting from a legal suit against the state of Louisiana. Specifically, the bill appropriates $150,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021 to fulfill the financial requirements of the judgment, which was issued in the case 'Kevin Brent Fontenot versus State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development'. This judgment relates to claims against the state involving legal and financial obligations outlined in the court's decision.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding this bill is largely procedural, as it deals with the fulfillment of a legal obligation rather than the introduction of new policy or regulatory changes. Supporters of the bill see it as a necessary measure to uphold the state’s commitments and avoid further legal complications. There might have been limited contention raised, primarily focusing on budgeting and financial management rather than on the fundamental principles of the bill itself.

Contention

Although legislation like HB 310 typically does not elicit significant controversy, discussions around the bill could highlight concerns over the allocation of state funds, particularly in relation to how financial settlements are handled. Any points of contention might revolve around the prioritization of funding for legal judgments versus other pressing state needs. Therefore, while the intention of the bill is straightforward, debates can arise regarding fiscal responsibility and the implications of continuously settling claims against the state.