Louisiana House Bill HB276

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 "Stephen and Lori Davis, et al v. DOTD" consolidated with "Christina Wiley, et al v. DOTD" consolidated with "Amanda Townsend, et al v. DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 276 signifies the state’s recognition of legal obligations arising from lawsuits filed against it, particularly involving the DOTD. By appropriating the necessary funds, the bill ensures that affected parties receive compensation for their claims, which in this instance stem from issues likely related to actions or decisions made by the state’s transportation authority. In doing so, it reinforces the principle that the state must honor court judgments and uphold the rule of law, presenting a commitment to fund judicial mandates.

Summary

House Bill 276 focuses on the appropriation of funds from Louisiana's General Fund for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 to satisfy a judgment against the state related to consolidated lawsuits. The primary case involves claims from Stephen and Lori Davis, Christina Wiley, and Amanda Townsend against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) for various grievances. The bill allocates a total of $633,820.25, along with legal interest and court costs, to settle these claims effectively, emphasizing the government's responsibility in addressing judicial outcomes.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 276 appears neutral in nature, as it pertains more to administrative and financial obligations of the state rather than contentious policy changes. There does not seem to be a significant opposition or support debate within the documentation, reflecting a general consensus on the need to comply with judicial decisions and appropriate the necessary funds without further controversy. Given its focus on budgetary matters, the bill likely eludes partisan divisions commonly seen in more policy-driven legislative discussions.

Contention

While HB 276 faces minimal contention, its implications underscore larger discussions about state funding and accountability. Appropriating funds for legal judgments involves careful consideration of budgetary constraints and the potential impact on other public services. Critics may raise concerns about repeated instances where the state must fulfill court orders, questioning whether this reflects proper governance, while supporters might argue it exemplifies necessary adherence to legal determinations. Nonetheless, the immediate focus remains on ensuring that justice is served for the plaintiffs involved in the consolidated cases.