Louisiana House Bill HB133

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Ethel Irvin, wife of and Lennie Irvin, Sr. v. Walter Bradix, Waste Management of Louisiana, L.L.C., the American Insurance Company, and State of Louisiana through DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 133 highlights the state’s financial responsibilities in legal matters where it is involved. By appropriating funds specifically for the court judgment, the bill reinforces the state's commitment to addressing legal outcomes and settling judgments. This can set a precedent for how future legal matters, where the state is a party, are funded. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of timely payment to ensure that justice is served and reflects the state's role in upholding the rulings of the judiciary.

Summary

House Bill 133 aims to appropriate funds for the payment of a court judgment related to the case of 'Ethel Irvin wife of and Lennie Irvin, Sr. v. Walter Bradix, Waste Management of Louisiana, L.L.C., the American Insurance Company, and State of Louisiana through DOTD'. The bill specifies that a total of $20,000 will be drawn from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2013-2014 to settle the aforementioned judgment. This appropriation serves as a financial resolution of a legal dispute involving state entities.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 133 generally leans towards acknowledgment of the state's obligation to adhere to judicial decisions. While the bill itself may not invoke much contention, it reflects the procedural necessity to allocate funds for legal judgments. Stakeholders seem to agree that such appropriations are essential to maintain the integrity of the state's legal system, despite the usual scrutiny over budget allocations.

Contention

Although HB 133 does not appear to have significant points of contention, some concerns may arise regarding the allocation of funds from the General Fund. There is often debate within legislative bodies over budgetary priorities, and critics may question whether such appropriations divert necessary funds from other pressing state issues. Nevertheless, the bill seems to be a straightforward mechanism for fulfilling a financial liability, thereby impacting public trust in governance and legal compliance.