Louisiana House Bill HB41

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgments in the matter of "Lois J. Washington, et al and Betty Smith, et al v. Louisiana DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 41 reflects a commitment by the state of Louisiana to uphold court decisions and ensure that individuals are compensated for legal judgments. By appropriating these funds, the bill aims to mitigate the financial obligations that arose from the court's ruling against the DOTD. This act not only serves to fulfill legal requirements but also reinforces the principle of accountability for state departments in matters related to civil litigation.

Summary

House Bill 41 is a legislative measure that appropriates funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2011-2012. The bill specifically addresses the need to pay two consent judgments arising from the court case 'Lois J. Washington, et al and Betty Smith, et al v. Louisiana DOTD'. The appropriated funds include $33,000 to Lois Washington and $91,638.28 to Betty Smith, designated to cover the costs associated with these judgments. This financial allocation seeks to resolve the liabilities incurred by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) regarding the mentioned lawsuit.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be neutral to positive, as it primarily focuses on compliance with judicial decisions rather than introducing new policies or creating significant controversies. Generally, legislation that addresses financial responsibilities stemming from court rulings tends to garner support across party lines as it symbolizes respect for the judicial process. However, there could be concerns about how such appropriations impact the state budget and other funding priorities.

Contention

While the bill mainly serves to appropriate funds, there could be potential contention regarding the funding sources and the implications of continuous appropriations required for legal judgments. Critics might suggest that repeated financial obligations due to legal encounters could strain the state's budget in other areas, leading to debates on fiscal responsibility and the prioritization of state spending in light of such judicial costs.