Louisiana House Bill HB19

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Peter Galila v. Randall John Wire, Jr., et al"

Impact

The approval of HB19 has implications for the state's financial management practices, as it ensures that agreements from legal contentions are honored and settled. By designating funds explicitly for this purpose, the bill reinforces the principle of accountability in governance and maintains the integrity of the judicial process. Additionally, appropriating these funds may also have ripple effects on the state budget, requiring careful consideration of available resources and expenditures for other services or obligations of the state.

Summary

House Bill 19 (HB19) appropriates funds from the Louisiana state general fund for the fiscal year 2011-2012 to settle a legal judgment arising from the case 'Peter Galila v. Randall John Wire, Jr., et al.' This judgment requires the payment of $62,500, which is specifically directed towards the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill identifies the amount to be covered to fulfill the obligations imposed by the court in relation to the judgment while also providing a mechanism for the disbursement of these funds from the state's budget.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB19 appears to be practical rather than contentious. Given that the bill strictly pertains to fulfilling a legal obligation, it has garnered support with the understanding that settling such judgments is a necessary function of state governance. There is no notable dissent expressed specifically on this bill, as it addresses a settled legal issue rather than proposing new regulations or services.

Contention

While HB19 does not appear to provoke significant controversy, it does highlight the recurring theme of state liability in cases involving state departments. It signifies a commitment to upholding the state's obligations resulting from court rulings. The straightforward nature of the bill, focusing solely on financial appropriation without introducing broader regulatory implications, allows it to progress relatively without opposition.