Louisiana House Bill HB34

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Joyce Kelly v. the State of Louisiana and DOTD"

Impact

The enactment of HB 34 will directly affect state budget allocations by allocating a specific amount of $15,000 to cover the judicial judgment. By appropriating these funds, the state ensures compliance with the court's ruling, thereby fulfilling its legal obligations and potentially preventing further legal complications or claims of state negligence. Such appropriations can resonate beyond immediate financial implications, reflecting the state's commitment to uphold judicial verdicts and manage public funds responsibly.

Summary

House Bill 34 is a legislative proposal aimed at appropriating funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013. Specifically, it authorizes the payment of a consent judgment resulting from a lawsuit entitled 'Joyce Kelly v. Rubin Calvit, Sr., et al.' This measure reflects the state's obligation to fulfill financial liabilities arising from judicial rulings, underscoring the importance of maintaining the integrity of governmental responsibilities in legal matters. The bill sets aside a total of $15,000 for this particular purpose and identifies the relevant court case associated with the payment.

Sentiment

While the available information does not provide extensive insight into the public or legislative sentiment surrounding HB 34, it can be inferred that bills concerning appropriations for legal judgments typically receive bipartisan support, given their nature of fulfilling obligations rather than introducing controversial new policies. The sentiment towards the bill likely aligns with a consensus on the necessity of honoring legal agreements and the implications of failing to address such financial responsibilities.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 34 may arise regarding the amount appropriated and the context of the lawsuit itself. Stakeholders may question whether $15,000 is appropriate for the obligations represented in the consent judgment. While approval of the bill may not spark significant debate, discussions around state spending and the efficiency of such appropriations could be a point of focus amongst lawmakers and financial oversight committees.