Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the matter entitled Marchand v. State of La. et al.
Impact
If enacted, HB 105 will enable the state to fulfill its financial obligation arising from the court ruling, thus ensuring that the judgment amount is paid in accordance with legal requirements. The bill outlines that the payment will only occur after appropriate documentation has been presented to the state treasurer. Notably, the bill also stipulates that interest on the judgment will cease to accrue as of the effective date of the Act, indicating a clear fiscal responsibility on the part of the state to resolve such legal matters promptly.
Summary
House Bill 105 mandates the appropriation of $450,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2024-2025 to satisfy a consent judgment resulting from the lawsuit "Jared Marchand v. State of Louisiana et al." This judgment was handed down by the 21st Judicial District court in Tangipahoa Parish. The appropriation is intended solely for the payment of the judgment, which includes principal, interest, court costs, and expert witness fees as specified in the judgment itself.
Sentiment
General sentiment regarding HB 105 appears to be focused on the necessity of fulfilling legal obligations as mandated by the court. There may be support for the bill among government representatives who emphasize the importance of maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the state's financial obligations are met without delay. Discussions surrounding the bill are likely to highlight the need for prompt payment to prevent further legal complications or financial liabilities.
Contention
While the bill itself is relatively straightforward, potential points of contention could arise from differing opinions on the appropriateness of using state funds for judgment payments. Some legislators may raise concerns about fiscal priorities and whether this expenditure aligns with other urgent state needs. Nonetheless, as the bill addresses a legally binding judgment, resistance may be limited, focusing more on the allocation of resources and the implications for the state's continuing financial commitments.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Nicole C. Henderson et al. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., et al.
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 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 in the suit entitled Tabitha Beebe et al. v. State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development