Louisiana House Bill HB210

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Gwen Brown v. State of Louisiana DOTD"

Impact

The passing of HB210 will directly influence state budgeting, as it mandates the allocation of significant funds towards this particular legal obligation. By appropriating these funds, the state can manage fiscal liabilities that emerge from court decisions, thereby maintaining its credibility and legal integrity. If the bill is enacted, it may also set a precedent for how future judgments against the state are managed and financed, emphasizing the importance of state accountability in legal matters.

Summary

House Bill 210 is legislation proposing the appropriation of $75,000 from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013. The funds are designated to pay a consent judgment arising from the case 'Gwen Brown v. State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development'. This bill reflects the state's commitment to fulfilling judicial obligations and ensuring that it meets its financial responsibilities stemming from legal cases. The bill is straightforward in its intent to allocate funds to settle a specific lawsuit against the state, highlighting the intersection of state finances and judicial decisions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB210 appears to be neutral to positive, stemming from a recognition of the necessity to comply with judicial determinations. While there is limited public discourse around this specific bill, such appropriation measures are often seen as part of responsible governance. Lawmakers are generally supportive of fulfilling the state’s obligations, though some factions may express concern over the overall management of state funds and the implications of such payments on future budgets.

Contention

While there were no significant points of contention reported surrounding HB210, it mentions the legal case which could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future. The bill serves as a reminder of the financial burdens that can arise from judicial decisions and the state's responsibility to address these appropriately. Any debate would likely revolve around fiscal priorities and the broader impact of such appropriations on state services and programs.