Louisiana House Bill HB398

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Allen Washington and Sandra Washington, et al v. State of Louisiana DOTD, et al"

Impact

The appropriation of these funds serves to fulfill the obligations arising from a court decision, which indicates the state’s readiness to resolve legal disputes financially and maintain its credibility in upholding law and justice. By allocating funds for this judgment, the state addresses the outcome of a judicial ruling, thereby ensuring that affected parties receive compensation as determined by the court. This action is significant in managing the financial implications of legal challenges faced by the state government, particularly concerning operational oversight within various departments, including transportation.

Summary

House Bill 398 is legislation that appropriates a sum of $1,500,000 from the state general fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2013-2014. The allocated funds are specifically intended for the payment of a consent judgment resulting from the lawsuit titled 'Allen Washington and Sandra Washington, et al v. State of Louisiana DOTD, et al'. This case revolves around a legal dispute involving the state and the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) as well as additional parties such as Jermaine Brisco, Bayou Steel Corporation, and their associated insurance company, ABC Insurance Company. The bill's enactment is set to take effect on July 1, 2013, contingent on approval by the legislature or governor, should a veto occur.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 398 can be considered largely procedural and non-controversial, given that it deals with executing a court-mandated judgment. Since the bill's primary focus is on appropriating funds to settle a lawsuit, discussions around the bill may not generate as much heated debate compared to more contentious legislative issues. Generally, there appears to be a consensus on the necessity of honoring judicial decisions, although some members may voice concerns regarding the implications of state-funded settlements on broader fiscal matters.

Contention

While there isn’t extensive evidence of contention surrounding HB 398 specifically, the nature of lawsuits implicating state entities often raises questions concerning accountability, oversight, and broader implications for future state spending. Thus, discussions may depend on the context of the lawsuit and its outcomes, especially if similar cases arise in the future. The financial ramifications of such judgments may lead to scrutiny regarding how effectively state agencies manage their operations and mitigate future liabilities.