Louisiana House Bill HB77

Louisiana 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/14/22
• Refer: 2/14/22
• Refer: 3/14/22

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Jason Schwab and Brantley Grundmann v Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, et al.

Impact

The passing of HB 77 would primarily impact the financial operations of the Louisiana state government by facilitating the payment of court-ordered judgments. This payment must be finalized before the appropriation can be executed, indicating that only finalized judgments authorizing such payments will be funded through this bill. Importantly, it includes a provision stating that interest on the judgment will cease to accrue as of the effective date of the bill, clearly delineating financial responsibilities and timelines for the involved parties.

Summary

House Bill 77 aims to appropriate a sum of $1,418 from the State General Fund (Direct) for the fiscal year 2021-2022. This funding is designated for the payment of a consent judgment in the civil case 'Jason Schwab and Brantley Grundmann versus Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, and the Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District'. The bill underscores a formal acknowledgment of the state's financial obligations in relation to prior legal settlements involving state entities.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding House Bill 77 appears to be largely procedural and technical, as it concerns payments resulting from judicial decisions rather than the creation of controversial new laws or policies. Legislative discussions have focused more on compliance with legal obligations rather than on significant debate regarding the merits of the payment itself. No notable opposition is indicated in the summaries, suggesting a consensus on the necessity of fulfilling the state's obligations.

Contention

While HB 77 is straightforward in its purpose, there may be underlying frustrations about the legal proceedings that necessitated this funding. As with any case involving state financial responsibilities, concerns over fiscal accountability and the implications of previous decisions made by state entities might arise. Nonetheless, the bill does not indicate any points of significant contention among legislators, reflecting a pragmatic approach to settling this legal matter.