Louisiana House Bill HB28

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Barbara Ann Thibodeaux Rando, et ux v. Troy D. Furr and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Progressive Security Insurance Company, and State of La. through DOTD"

Impact

The approval of HB 28 signifies a financial commitment on the part of the state to uphold judicial rulings, demonstrating an adherence to legal and fiscal responsibilities. Appropriating these funds directly impacts the state budget, as it allocates a portion of the general fund specifically for legal settlements. This is an important aspect of state governance, as it underscores the significance of compensating individuals when the state is found liable, thereby maintaining trust in public institutions and governance.

Summary

House Bill 28 is a legislative measure that appropriates funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2013-2014 to cover a consent judgment amounting to $10,000 in favor of Daniel Rando. This judgment stems from a lawsuit involving several parties, including the State of Louisiana and its Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill outlines the specific allocation of funds needed to satisfy this legal obligation, ensuring that the state fulfills its financial responsibility resulting from the court's decision.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 28 reflects a general acknowledgment of the need for financial accountability and responsiveness to court decisions. While the bill is straightforward in its intent to allocate funds, discussions amongst legislators may focus on broader themes such as fiscal management, attorney fees, and the implications of judicial rulings on state finances. The lack of significant contentious debate around the bill indicates an alignment among members regarding the necessity of appropriating funds for legal obligations.

Contention

Although there are no notable points of contention explicitly detailed in the discussions surrounding HB 28, the concerns raised in similar legislative contexts generally revolve around the appropriateness of state spending and the processes surrounding financial appropriations for legal judgments. The bill reflects a procedural mechanism that many lawmakers accept as necessary, though it also invites scrutiny regarding how similar judgments may arise in the future and how they will affect the state's budgetary priorities.