Appropriates funds for payment of judgment in the matter of "Jeanne Aguillard and Laura Smith v. Charles Guidry, et al."
Impact
The passing of HB 1036 holds implications for state laws governing how the state manages court-ordered payments. By appropriating funds specifically for this case, the bill reinforces the state's commitment to honor legal judgments. It signals to both the public and other potential claimants that the state takes its legal obligations seriously, which could have a deterrent effect on future litigation involving the state. Furthermore, it demonstrates the legislative branch's role in ensuring that the state's financial commitments are met promptly and transparently.
Summary
House Bill 1036 is a legislative proposal aimed at appropriating funds from the General Fund of the state of Louisiana for fiscal year 2016-2017 to pay a consent judgment resulting from a court case titled 'Jeanne Aguillard and Laura Smith v. Charles Guidry, et al.' The bill specifically outlines allocations of $7,000 to Jeanne Aguillard and $23,000 to Laura Smith for their respective claims related to the lawsuit. This legislation is a direct response to the court's judgment requiring the state to fulfill its financial obligations stemming from the case.
Sentiment
The general sentiment regarding HB 1036 appears to be neutral to favorable, as it addresses a specific legal requirement without sparking significant controversy. Lawmakers discussing the bill may view it as a necessary function of government to uphold the rule of law by ensuring that those owed payments receive the funds they are entitled to. However, the bill's relatively simple nature, being focused on financial appropriations, means it does not generate the passionate debates seen with more contentious legislation.
Contention
While there does not appear to be substantial public or legislative contention surrounding HB 1036, discussions could arise regarding the broader implications of state appropriations for legal judgments. The allocation of state funds for specific cases may lead to scrutiny over budget priorities and the potential for increased legal liabilities. Nevertheless, the bill itself primarily serves to fulfill a pre-existing obligation, thus minimizing potential debate.
Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Susan Guidry and Nancy Deselle, et al v. Mrs. Frank Bedell, et al" consolidated with "Leila Marie Tassin, et al v. Frank Bedell, et al"