Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Corliss Landry v. Surefire Construction, Inc., and Victor Scott Bernard
Impact
The approval of this bill is significant as it ensures that the state settles its financial obligations resulting from a court decision. The appropriated amount will cover the judgment, including principal, interest, court costs, and any expert witness fees outlined in the ruling. By providing for these payments, the bill aids in maintaining the integrity of state governance and adhering to judicial mandates. Without such appropriations, the state could face further legal complications or financial penalties.
Summary
House Bill 384 appropriates funds amounting to $250,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2020-2021. The funds are specifically designated for the payment of a consent judgment awarded in the case of Corliss Landry v. Surefire Construction, Inc., and Victor Scott Bernard. This bill acts as a mechanism to ensure that the state complies with the legal ruling rendered by the court, allowing for the disbursement of the appropriation to meet the judgment requirements.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 384 appears to be generally supportive since it resolves a legal obligation that the state has incurred. Lawmakers recognize the importance of adhering to judicial decisions, which reflects a commitment to rule of law and accountability. There may be limited contention around this bill since it deals specifically with fulfilling a previously established legal agreement, rather than introducing new policies or regulations.
Contention
While HB 384 does not introduce significant points of contention, discussions may arise regarding the appropriateness of using state funds for settlements in legal cases against the state. Some may argue about prioritizing how taxpayer money is spent, particularly in times of budget constraints. However, since it is a matter of complying with a court order, the bill's passage is likely seen as a necessary procedural step rather than a controversial piece of legislation.
Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Charles G. Phillips, Jr. et al. v the State of Louisiana 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.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Don Fontenelle v. Dash Building Material Center, Inc. et al.