Louisiana House Bill HB14

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/15
• Refer: 2/13/15
• Refer: 4/13/15

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Michael Aleshire and Mary Aleshire v. CUSA, GCT, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Coast Transportation, Vencent R. Barnett, and National Union Fire Insurance"

Impact

If passed, HB14 would ensure that the state meets its legal obligations and financial liabilities arising from judgments against state departments. This allocation is a reflection of responsible governance, as it provides for accountability and adherence to the legal system. The funding is intended to prevent any potential legal repercussions that might arise from the state's failure to pay the judgment, which could lead to further litigation costs or penalties.

Summary

House Bill 14 aims to appropriate funds from the state general fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2015-2016, specifically to cover a consent judgment in the court case 'Michael Aleshire and Mary Aleshire v. CUSA, GCT, LLC, d/b/a Gulf Coast Transportation, Vencent R. Barnett, and National Union Fire Insurance'. The bill proposes a sum of $104,380.82 to be disbursed to settle this legal judgment against the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). This action is a direct response to court orders resulting from a lawsuit concerning transportation-related issues.

Sentiment

The sentiment regarding HB14 appears to be neutral to positive, as it does not evoke significant controversy or division among lawmakers. The essence of the bill is administrative, focusing on the necessity of satisfying a court ruling rather than enacting new policy or legislation. As a result, discussions surrounding the bill are likely to emphasize fiscal responsibility rather than partisanship.

Contention

Since HB14 deals specifically with the allocation of funds for a pre-existing legal matter, it faces limited contention compared to more politically charged bills. However, there may be underlying concerns about the impact of such judgments on future budgets and the potential need for increased funding appropriations in response to future legal challenges involving public entities. Overall, while the bill serves a necessary purpose, the long-term implications of judicial liabilities on state finances could warrant further discussion.