Louisiana House Bill HB35

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/16
• Refer: 1/26/16
• Refer: 3/14/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "James J. Mire, et al v. Shonna M. Orgeron, et al"

Impact

The financial appropriation stipulated in HB 35 directly impacts the Louisiana state budget, showcasing the state's responsibility to allocate resources for legal obligations. By channeling funds to pay for consent judgments, the state reinforces its legal and fiscal accountability. This has implications for how the state manages future liabilities and legal costs, potentially influencing budgetary practices and priorities moving forward.

Summary

House Bill 35 addresses the appropriation of state funds to fulfill a consent judgment stemming from a legal case involving the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Specifically, the bill allocates a total of $50,000 out of the General Fund for the 2016-2017 fiscal year to pay the judgment in the case entitled 'James J. Mire, et al v. Shonna M. Orgeron, et al'. This case arises from circumstances that required judicial resolution and highlights the state’s commitment to adhering to legal decisions regarding public funding and liability.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 35 appears to be neutral, largely focused on the necessity of fulfilling a legal obligation rather than triggering significant public debate or concern. While the bill does not generate substantial contention, it reflects a procedural nature typical of appropriations bills which are essential for government operations. The necessity to pay judgments represents an acknowledgment of the legal system's authority and the state's duty to its residents.

Contention

While there is no notable opposition to HB 35, the underlying legal case might raise questions concerning the state's conduct or the practices of entities involved. The approval process and the allocation from the state General Fund are standard and typically face little contestation in legislative sessions. However, any instances of public discontent could arise from the broader implications of state financial management and judicial accountability if similar cases were to emerge.