Louisiana House Bill HB367

Louisiana 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/31/21
• Refer: 3/31/21
• Refer: 4/12/21

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled David L. Ocmand et al. v. Town of Brusly et al. c/w Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. the State of Louisiana c/w State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Com. v. the State of Louisiana

Impact

The enactment of HB 367 would allow the state to fulfill its financial obligations stemming from a consent judgment. This has implications for how state funds are allocated, reflecting a mechanism through which the state manages its legal liabilities. The appropriations align with the broader responsibilities of the government to settle judgments without accruing further interest, thereby ensuring fiscal responsibility within the framework established by the law. It signifies the state's commitment to addressing legal claims effectively and expeditiously.

Summary

House Bill 367 aims to appropriate funds from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021 to cover a consent judgment in a legal case involving the state of Louisiana and the Department of Transportation. The specific amount appropriated is $17,000, which is designated for payment in the lawsuit titled 'David L. Ocmand and Linda C. Ocmand versus Town of Brusly and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation.' This bill facilitates crucial funding necessary for settling legal obligations borne out of prior judicial rulings against the state.

Sentiment

The general sentiment regarding HB 367 appears to be neutral, focusing more on the necessity of fulfilling legal obligations than on political ideologies or public controversy. Since the primary goal is the payment of a specific judgment, the discussions around the bill primarily revolve around procedural understandings and the correct use of state funds, rather than polarizing points of contention. However, stakeholders may still express varied opinions on state spending priorities in the context of appropriations.

Contention

While no significant points of contention were noted in available discussions, the bill could see some debates related to the appropriateness of using public funds for legal settlements. Concerns might emerge around ensuring adequate transparency in the legal processes related to state expenditures. The effectiveness of the bill might also be questioned if stakeholders perceive it as diverting funds from other necessary state functions, leading to discussions regarding fiscal policy and accountability.