Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Ron Kendrick v. State of Louisiana, et al.
Impact
The bill stipulates that the allocated funds must cover all related costs dictated by the consent judgment, including principal, interest, and expert witness fees. A notable aspect of the proposed legislation is that it offers a clear directive on the payment process, mandating that funds be disbursed only upon the submission of appropriate documentation to the state treasurer. Furthermore, it specifies that interest on the judgment shall cease to accumulate from the date of the bill's enactment, which could have implications for budgetary constraints and financial planning within state funds.
Summary
House Bill 139, introduced by Representative Stagni, proposes appropriating $14,000 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2023-2024. The funds are specifically designated for the payment of a consent judgment resulting from a legal case titled Ron Kendrick vs. State of Louisiana, among others. This case is documented under the Orleans Parish Civil District Court, indicating a formal resolution reached by the state concerning a legal dispute with the claimant, Ron Kendrick.
Sentiment
Overall, sentiment surrounding HB 139 is likely to be neutral to positive, as the bill mainly addresses a financial obligation of the state. The necessity of honoring court judgments is generally regarded as essential for maintaining the rule of law and state accountability. However, discussions may also bring forth concerns regarding the financial implications of such appropriations on other state-funded initiatives, indicating a potential for mixed responses from stakeholders.
Contention
While the bill primarily focuses on the financial aspects of a specific legal settlement, the appropriateness of the amount and reasoning behind the lawsuit’s initiation may raise questions among legislators and the public. Some may argue that the state should take measures to prevent such lawsuits or seek to reform related policies to mitigate similar future occurrences. Overall, the bill encapsulates the intersection of state fiscal responsibility and legal obligations while potentially highlighting broader issues regarding state liability.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Wendy Bueso Bonilla et al. versus Big Buck's Truck Center
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Tabitha Beebe et al. v. State of La., through the Dept. of Transportation and Development
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Patricia Lazare et al. vs. State of La. through the Dept. of Transportation and Development et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgments against the state in the consolidated actions entitled Canella et al. v Oliver et al. consolidated with Troy V. Canella v Oliver et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Jason Schwab and Brantley Grundmann v La. Dept. of Transportation and Development, et al
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state through the Dept. of Transportation and Development in the suit entitled Brooke Douet v. Amber Nicole Leblanc et al.
Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled James Geduldick v. Amanda Fagane et al. c/w Ronald L. Courtney and Rebecca L. Morris v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al.