Appropriates funds for payment of the judgment against the state in the suit entitled Crooks v. State, Department of Natural Resources
Impact
The approval of HB 448 will facilitate the payment of various costs associated with this judgment, including principal, court costs, expert witness fees, and interests as awarded in the judgment. The bill mandates that the funds be deposited with the court’s registry specifically for this case. Such a financial allocation underscores the state’s obligation to fulfill judiciary determinations, reinforcing the legal outcomes of the courts that reflect the rights of riparian landowners concerning royalties derived from natural resources.
Summary
House Bill 448 seeks to appropriate a total of $9,388,436.06 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2022-2023 to cover the payment of a judgment resulting from the lawsuit 'Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks versus State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.' This judgment originates from a dispute regarding oil and gas royalties tied to mineral production, which has been modified through various judicial opinions over the years, culminating in the decision that forms the basis for this bill's financial provisions.
Sentiment
The sentiment regarding HB 448 appears to be primarily procedural, focusing on adherence to judicial rulings rather than polarizing political debates. Legislators seem to agree on the necessity of fulfilling the judgment, thereby indicating an understanding of the importance of maintaining trust in the judicial system and the overall governance of state responsibilities. However, the financial implications of such appropriations often spark discussions on budget allocations and the state’s fiscal health, which can lead to differing opinions on the appropriateness of such payments.
Contention
While there do not appear to be significant points of contention surrounding HB 448 itself, discussions could potentially arise regarding the broader implications of state appropriations for judicial judgments. Questions may be raised about the impact of these payments on future budgetary constraints, the precedential nature of making similar appropriations for other ongoing litigation, and potential implications for the relationship between state agencies and private entities involved in similar disputes. Nevertheless, the bill seems to focus on fulfilling a specific legal obligation without major controversy.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgments against the state in the consolidated actions entitled Canella et al. v Oliver et al. consolidated with Troy V. Canella v Oliver et al.
Prohibits the State Bond Commission from approving bonds, notes, or other indebtedness issued by or on behalf of the state against whom there is an unpaid judgment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for amounts owed for services performed under contract. (8/1/12) (OR INCREASE SG EX See Note)
Appropriates funds for payment of the amended non-appealable judgment by consent against the state in the suit entitled Mitchell Johnson, Jr. v. State of Louisiana et al. c/w David Lanus et al. v. State of Louisiana et al.
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
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