Louisiana House Bill HB672

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/10/13
• Refer: 4/11/13

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Nina Skinner, et al v. State of Louisiana DOTD"

Impact

The enactment of HB 672 has implications for state financial management and budgeting. By allocating a specific amount for this judgment, the bill underscores the importance of honoring court decisions and settlements that arise from actions involving state agencies. The appropriation acts as a mechanism to ensure that state funds are utilized properly to settle claims that have been adjudicated in court, which could enhance public trust in the state government's commitment to uphold the rule of law.

Summary

House Bill 672 appropriates funds from the state general fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2013-2014 to cover a judgment resulting from a lawsuit entitled 'Nina Skinner, et al v. State of Louisiana DOTD.' The appropriated amount is $495,000, which is to be used to satisfy a consent judgment awarded to Nina Skinner and her minor children following a dispute with the state's Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill directly addresses financial obligations arising from judicial decisions and reflects the state's responsibility to manage legal claims against it.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 672 appears neutral as it is primarily focused on fulfilling a financial obligation rather than introducing new legislative priorities. There are no strong indications of extensive public opposition or support highlighted in the discussions related to this bill. Given its straightforward purpose, it likely reflects a consensus among lawmakers on the need to address and resolve legal liabilities effectively.

Contention

While the bill does not appear to generate significant contention, it does raise underlying issues regarding the accountability of state agencies. Questions may emerge regarding how such judgments are incurred and the state’s approach to risk management. Furthermore, there may be discussions about prioritizing funds for legal judgments over other potential uses of the budget, which could ignite debate about fiscal responsibility and the management of state resources.