Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment entitled John Dixon Shupe et al. v. State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Impact
The bill is impactful as it lays out the framework for how the State of Louisiana will handle and fulfill its financial obligations arising from court orders. The allocation of funds signifies the state's commitment to adhering to judicial decisions, which not only fulfills legal requirements but also influences public trust in governmental integrity and accountability. The stipulations that interest on the judgment ceases as of the bill's effective date further outlines the financial framework within which the state operates when finalizing such judgments.
Summary
House Bill 863 is a legislative measure proposing the appropriation of $150,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2021-2022. The funds are designated for the payment of a consent judgment in the case of John Dixon Shupe and Kristin Aubin, on behalf of their minor child against the State of Louisiana, specifically the Department of Transportation and Development. This bill directly correlates with the resolution of a legal dispute that has implications for state liabilities and financial responsibilities regarding judicial outcomes.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 863 appears neutral to positive, as it addresses a necessary legal obligation rather than a controversial policy change. Legislators recognize the importance of settling legal disputes efficiently to uphold public confidence in state governance. However, discussions may reflect on the broader implications of financial appropriations in response to legal judgments, which can sometimes stir debates regarding state priorities and fiscal management.
Contention
While the bill primarily seeks to address a legal obligation, debates around it may arise from concerns about state funding allocations and priorities. Some may question whether such appropriations could detract from other essential state services or initiatives. Additionally, the specificity of the bill in addressing one consent judgment might raise discussions on how future judgments are managed and funded, framing it within the larger context of state financial responsibilities and legal accountability.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Patricia Lazare et al. vs. State of La. through the Dept. of Transportation and Development et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Tabitha Beebe et al. v. State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Appropriates funds for payment of a consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development v. Martin T. Frey et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Brooke Laborde v. State of Louisiana, through the Dept. of Transportation and Development et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Timmy D. Normand, et ux v. State of La. through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Appropriates funding for the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Matthew Anders v. State of La. through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state through the Dept. of Transportation and Development in the suit entitled "Alexandra Broussard vs. The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transporation and Development, et al"
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state through the Dept. of Transportation and Development in the suit entitled Brooke Douet v. Amber Nicole Leblanc et al.