Louisiana House Bill HB317

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Damien L. Davis and Rochelle Robinson Davis v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development and the City of New Orleans"

Impact

The passage of HB 317 will directly affect the financial resources allocated within the state's budget. By appropriating funds for legal judgments, the bill facilitates the state's compliance with court decisions, which is crucial to maintaining trust in the legal system. Additionally, this appropriation reflects a precedent that may influence future state expenditures concerning litigation, especially in cases involving the Department of Transportation and local entities like the City of New Orleans.

Summary

House Bill 317 appropriates $485,000 from the General Fund of the State of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2013-2014. This amount is designated for payment of a consent judgment in a legal case titled 'Damien L. Davis and Rochelle Robinson Davis v. State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development and the City of New Orleans'. The bill aims to provide funding to fulfill financial obligations resulting from this legal decision, highlighting the state's commitment to settle claims against it.

Sentiment

The sentiment regarding HB 317 appears to be neutral as it primarily revolves around the necessity of fulfilling a legal requirement rather than a contentious legislative debate. The bill does not face significant opposition or support since it strictly addresses a financial obligation rather than introducing new policies or regulations. Consequently, the discussions surrounding this bill focus more on financial stewardship than ideological or partisan divides.

Contention

While HB 317 does not seem to inspire significant contention from a legislative perspective, the broader implications of budget appropriations can lead to debates about state funding priorities. Opponents may argue that funds should be directed toward more pressing needs, while supporters advocate for the importance of fulfilling legal judgments. This highlights the ongoing tension within state budgeting processes regarding the allocation of limited resources.