Louisiana House Bill HB78

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Kyle D. Melville v. State of La. through DOTD"

Impact

If enacted, HB 78 would ensure that the state meets its financial obligations arising from the aforementioned legal judgment. The appropriation from the General Fund signifies a use of taxpayer money towards resolving legal disputes, which can have broader implications for the state's budget and financial planning. This allocation is representative of the mechanisms through which state governments handle legal liabilities, reaffirming the importance of fulfilling judicial mandates.

Summary

House Bill 78 is a legislative proposal focused on appropriating funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2013-2014. The bill specifically allocates the sum of $100,000 to cover a consent judgment resulting from a legal case titled 'Kyle D. Melville v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development'. This judgment reflects a legal obligation of the state to provide financial compensation due to a ruling from the Fifteenth Judicial District Court in Lafayette Parish.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 78 is largely pragmatic, focusing on the need for compliance with court orders. While there may not be extensive public debate over this specific measure, it serves as a reminder of the broader context of state responsibilities and the consequences of legal actions against governmental entities. The bill embodies a straightforward approach to legal settlements but can also reflect ongoing discussions about state financial management and accountability.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise in discussions about how appropriations are made and managed, particularly in relation to public funds. While the bill itself may not spark significant opposition, it could lead to inquiries about the underlying issues of the case and the broader implications of state liability. These discussions may involve considerations about judicial accountability, the use of public funds for legal matters, and the effectiveness of the Department of Transportation in preventing similar liabilities in the future.