Louisiana House Bill HB677

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the State of La. in the suit entitled "Jacqueline Bonvillain v. State of La., et al."

Impact

If passed, HB 677 will impact state financial management by ensuring that necessary funds are available for legal liabilities. This appropriation reflects the state’s commitment to address legal judgments and demonstrates accountability in managing public funds. Such measures are essential for upholding the integrity of state operations, particularly in relation to legal settlements, as they ensure that state obligations are met without undue delay or controversy.

Summary

House Bill 677 seeks to appropriate funds from the state general fund to cover a judgment payment associated with the case 'Jacqueline Bonvillain v. State of Louisiana, et al.'. The bill specifies an amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) to be allocated for the fiscal year 2010-2011, indicating a need for financial resources to settle the legal obligations of the state resulting from this lawsuit. The allocation is directly linked to the state’s responsibility in the case, which was filed in the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court in the parish of St. Charles.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding this bill is generally neutral, given its nature as a financial appropriation rather than a policy-driven piece of legislation. There may be limited opposition or support, primarily from stakeholders interested in the efficient management of state funds and the legal implications of the court case involved. However, the bill does not appear to generate intense debate or significant public interest, reflecting its straightforward purpose of addressing a specific judgment rather than broader legislative themes.

Contention

Notable points of contention are likely minimal in relation to HB 677, as the bill primarily addresses a financial obligation rather than a controversial policy issue. Any concerns may arise from discussions about the adequacy of the allocated amount or the implications of the judgment itself. However, since the bill's focus is on fulfilling a legal obligation, rather than enacting new laws or regulatory frameworks, it is less likely to face significant opposition or be viewed as a contentious issue.