Louisiana House Bill HB1003

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/12
• Refer: 3/21/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Rebecca Ann Vines Welch and Christopher Vines v. George R. Bryant, II, et al"

Impact

The bill's passage is significant as it directly affects how public funds are utilized in response to legal proceedings involving state agencies. By appropriating funds for this specific judgment, the state not only addresses the financial demands resulting from court rulings but also establishes a precedent for how future claims against the DOTD might be handled. This could impact the state’s budgetary processes and reflect on the priority given to legal obligations over other potential public service expenditures.

Summary

House Bill 1003 is a legislative appropriation bill aimed at allocating funds to satisfy a consent judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill specifies an appropriation of $45,000 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2012-2013 to fulfill the judgment in the case styled 'Rebecca Ann Vines Welch and Christopher Vines v. George R. Bryant, II, et al.' This action demonstrates the state's commitment to uphold legal obligations and ensure that claims against state entities are settled appropriately.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1003 has been predominantly practical and supportive, with an understanding that the state must meet its legal responsibilities. There are likely few, if any, substantial oppositional sentiments as the bill directly relates to fulfilling a court-ordered obligation, which is generally viewed as a necessary and responsible action for the state government.

Contention

As the bill deals largely with the payment of a judgment rather than the creation of new laws, there appears to be limited contention regarding its provisions. Most discussions would have been centered on ensuring adequate funding and the implications of using state funds for legal resolutions, without significant debate over the merits of the case itself. However, the potential for future disputes or calls for similar appropriations could arise as the state continues to manage its legal liabilities.