Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Towanda M. Savoy versus Vonkerri L. Kelly-Dixon et al.
Impact
The enactment of HB 18 directly affects how the state handles financial judgments involving consent decrees against it. By clearly stating the amount appropriated and the conditions for payment, it ensures that the state adheres to legal obligations resulting from court decisions. This bill may set a precedent for how similar situations are addressed in the future, potentially streamlining the process for dealing with consent judgments and reducing the state’s exposure to accumulating interest on such judgments.
Summary
House Bill 18 appropriates funds from the State General Fund for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024, specifically aiming to cover a consent judgment against the state of Louisiana in the case of Towanda M. Savoy v. Vonkerri L. Kelly-Dixon et al. The total amount allocated for this payment is $10,602.68. The bill outlines the conditions under which this payment will be made, emphasizing that any conflict between the judgment and the bill's provisions would default to the judgment's terms. Additionally, the bill clarifies that interest on the judgment will cease to accrue from the effective date of the proposed law.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 18 appears to be predominantly neutral, given its nature as an appropriations bill. There hasn't been significant opposition or support voiced in the debates, as the bill serves to fulfill a legal obligation rather than introduce policy changes. This often leads to less debate compared to more contentious legislative proposals. Nevertheless, among some legislators and constituents, there may be underlying frustrations regarding the necessity of appropriating funds for judgments that could reflect systemic issues within state agencies.
Contention
There are minimal points of contention highlighted in the discussions around HB 18. The primary focus has been on ensuring that the funds are allocated in accordance with the judgment's requirements and that all necessary documentation is presented to the state treasurer before disbursal. Potential concerns could arise regarding the implications of such appropriations on future state budgets or the need for better management practices to avoid similar situations in the future.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Wendy Bueso Bonilla et al. versus Big Buck's Truck Center
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 the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled James Geduldick v. Amanda Fagane et al. c/w Ronald L. Courtney and Rebecca L. Morris v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Jason Schwab and Brantley Grundmann v La. Dept. of Transportation and Development, et al
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.
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.