Louisiana House Bill HB395

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the suit entitled "Jeremy Waltrip, et al v. State of Louisiana, et al."

Impact

The approval of HB 395 will directly impact the state's financial planning by designating a portion of the general fund to pay for legal judgments. This measure underscores the importance of fiscal responsibility in government operations, particularly in litigation matters. Additionally, it illustrates the role of state appropriations in resolving legal disputes, ensuring that claimants receive compensation as determined by the judicial system. This act also sets an example of how the state addresses its liabilities stemming from legal actions against it.

Summary

House Bill 395, introduced by Representative Roy, focuses on appropriating funds from the Louisiana state general fund to satisfy a court judgment in the case of 'Jeremy Waltrip, et al. v. State of Louisiana, et al.' The bill specifically allocates a total of $495,000 to various plaintiffs as part of a consent judgment arising from this legal dispute. This financial appropriation is crucial for settling the claims that have been legally recognized by the court, particularly emphasizing the responsibility of the state to honor its financial obligations in such matters.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding HB 395 appear to reflect a pragmatic sentiment regarding the appropriations process. Legislators likely view the bill favorably, as it addresses the necessity of fulfilling judicial rulings. The need to provide financial compensation as dictated by the courts can foster a sense of accountability and demonstrate the state's commitment to upholding judicial decisions. However, there may also be underlying concerns about the implications of such payments on the state budget, which could lead to debates over future funding priorities.

Contention

While there may not be significant contention regarding the need to pay the judgment, potential points of concern could arise around the source of funding and its availability. Legislators might discuss the implications of the judgment on future appropriations or budgetary constraints, particularly if similar cases arise. Moreover, the bill highlights the ongoing financial responsibilities the state faces as a result of legal settlements, which could influence future legislative discussions about liability management within state agencies, especially the Department of Transportation and Development.