Louisiana House Bill HB185

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

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

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the state in the matter of "Mardel Von Solow, et al, and Paul Williams Marks and Belinda Boutte Migues, et al v. DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 185 would ensure that the state meets its financial obligations resulting from the legal judgment, thereby reinforcing the accountability of state agencies in legal disputes. By approving this appropriation, the legislature acknowledges the necessity of providing financial resources to cover legal claims, potentially impacting future budgeting decisions related to settlements and litigations against the state. The funds appropriated will directly impact the plaintiffs who are due compensation, thereby fulfilling the judicial mandate and upholding the rule of law in state governance.

Summary

House Bill 185 is an appropriation bill that seeks to allocate funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013. The bill specifically allocates a total of $41,946.51 to satisfy the consent judgment in the legal case of 'Mardel Von Solow, et al, v. DOTD'. This case involves several plaintiffs who sought compensation from the state, highlighting the state’s responsibility to address legal liabilities resulting from actions taken by its agencies, in this instance, the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD).

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 185 is largely neutral as it deals with fulfilling a legal obligation rather than creating new policies or regulations. While there may be discussions about the appropriateness of the allocated amount or the underlying circumstances of the case, the lack of significant contention suggests a general consensus about the necessity of addressing the judgment, with legislators supportive of satisfying legal obligations as part of responsible governance.

Contention

While HB 185 does not appear to face significant opposition, discussions around such appropriations can often raise concerns regarding the management of state funds and the broader implications of frequent legal settlements against the state. Legislators may debate the precedent this sets for other lawsuits and whether the state's approach to risk management and legal exposure needs reevaluation. However, the urgency to comply with the court's decision is acknowledged, making this bill less contentious than other legislative measures.