Louisiana House Bill HB92

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Appropriates funds for the payment of judgment against DOTD in the suit entitled "Patrick Robinson, et al v. Andrew M. Hintz, et al"

Impact

The direct impact of HB 92 is on the financial responsibilities of the state, particularly regarding its handling of judgments against state entities such as DOTD. By appropriating the necessary funds, the bill aims to uphold the rule of law, ensuring that the state honors its legal commitments. This action can be seen as reinforcing the accountability of state departments to adhere to judicial mandates, which in turn can influence public trust and financial management practices within state government operations.

Summary

House Bill 92, introduced by Representative Montoucet, focuses on the appropriation of funds to satisfy a legal judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Specifically, the bill allocates $50,000 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2010-2011 to cover the consent judgment from the case 'Patrick Robinson, et al v. Andrew M. Hintz, et al'. The passage of this bill is essential to ensure that the Department meets its obligations arising from a judicial decision effectively, thus avoiding further legal complications and penalties for the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 92 appears to be practical, focusing on fulfilling a legal requirement rather than invoking significant public or political debate. As it pertains to appropriations for a judgment that has already been established by the courts, the bill may not elicit strong contrasting opinions. Nevertheless, it reflects an administrative necessity to manage state affairs and legal liabilities responsibly.

Contention

Notably, there may be underlying concerns regarding fiscal management and the allocation of state funds, especially in light of competing budgetary priorities. Discussions surrounding the bill could address whether such appropriations are indicative of broader financial issues within the DOTD or if they represent isolated incidents. However, no significant points of contention or political division emerged int the discussions about this bill, as it primarily serves to address a specific legal obligation.