Louisiana House Bill HB117

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Rex Allen Kimble, Allen Paul Kimble and Stacy Wayne Kimble v. State of Louisiana, through the DOTD"

Impact

The enactment of HB 117 will lead to a direct financial obligation for the State of Louisiana, requiring the allocation of state funds to cover legal judgments. This action highlights the importance of properly budgeting state resources and signifies the state's commitment to addressing legal liabilities. Additionally, it underscores potential financial implications for future legislative appropriations, as state funds are finite and must be managed judiciously to accommodate these and other legal responsibilities.

Summary

House Bill 117 focuses on the appropriation of funds for the payment of a consent judgment resulting from a legal case against the State of Louisiana. Specifically, it allocates a total of $15,272 from the state's General Fund for the fiscal year 2014-2015. The funds are designated for settling the claim in the case 'Rex Allen Kimble, Allen Paul Kimble, and Stacy Wayne Kimble v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development'. This appropriation reflects the state's financial responsibility in addressing certain liabilities arising from legal disputes involving its agencies.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill seems to be straightforward, focusing primarily on legal compliance and financial accountability. There is little contention expressed in the discussions around this bill, reflecting a necessity to address a specific legal judgment rather than broader policy implications. Given the nature of the bill, most stakeholders—including legislators and state administrators—appear to view it as a clear-cut requirement for fulfilling a judicial ruling rather than a contentious legislative initiative.

Contention

While HB 117 does not appear to present significant points of contention, it does represent a necessary legislative action to comply with a court's decision. The lack of debate surrounding this bill indicates that it is primarily a procedural matter, though it raises awareness of how the state manages legal liabilities and appropriates funds accordingly. Nonetheless, it serves as a reminder to state legislators of the importance of legal proceedings and their financial outcomes on the state's budget and legislative priorities.