Louisiana House Bill HB220

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/31/15
• Refer: 3/31/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Donald M. Ragusa, Individually and on Behalf of his Minor Son, Trevor Ragusa, and Tina Cristina v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development"

Impact

The passage of HB 220 reflects the state's commitment to fulfilling its legal obligations as dictated by court decisions. By appropriating funds to settle this judgment, the state ensures it does not face further legal repercussions or additional costs associated with unresolved litigation. This also sets a precedent in legal affairs concerning the state’s responsibility towards individuals in litigation, particularly involving judgments that arise from actions or policies executed by state agencies like the Department of Transportation.

Summary

House Bill 220 appropriates funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2015-2016 to satisfy a consent judgment in the case of 'Donald M. Ragusa, Individually and on behalf of his minor son, Trevor Ragusa, and Tina Cristina v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development'. The amount allocated is $350,000, distributed equally between the parties involved in the case. This bill is a direct fiscal measure aiming to resolve a legal obligation rather than establishing new regulatory frameworks or programmatic initiatives.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 220 seems to be generally pragmatic, with most legislators recognizing the need to resolve this matter efficiently. Lawmakers appear to see this bill as a necessary financial commitment, one that upholds the integrity of the state’s legal framework. There may have been minimal contention since the bill primarily addresses a fiscal appropriation rather than a change in policy or law, which typically engenders more debate. Nevertheless, it underscores the importance of the state honoring its obligations to citizens.

Contention

Notably, while there may not be significant contention directly regarding HB 220, it does highlight the ongoing financial pressures faced by the state budget when accommodating court judgments. Discussions may arise concerning the sources of funding for such appropriations, especially within tight budgetary constraints, and how future judgments will be funded, which could provoke more extensive legislative debate down the line.