Louisiana House Bill HB126

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment judgment against DOTD in the suit entitled "Robert Lee Archer, et al v. Steven P. Aldridge, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 126 will directly influence state budgeting processes, particularly in terms of appropriations related to legal judgments against state agencies like the DOTD. By providing the necessary funds to settle this judgment, the bill addresses a specific legal obligation of the state, thus preventing potential future financial complications related to non-compliance with the court's ruling. This action demonstrates the state's intent to uphold its legal obligations and maintain fiscal responsibility.

Summary

House Bill 126 seeks to appropriate funds from the state's general fund for the fiscal year 2010-2011 to cover a consent judgment resulting from a lawsuit involving the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The case, titled 'Robert Lee Archer, et al v. Steven P. Aldridge', will be funded through an allocation of $2,000. The bill is a straightforward legal remedy designed to fulfill the financial requirements imposed by the court in this specific case.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 126 seems largely neutral or procedural. Since the bill is primarily focused on a legal settlement rather than a controversial policy change or new legislation, it has not attracted significant public debate or opposition. The primary stakeholders are likely to be the parties involved in the lawsuit, with broader implications for the state government regarding how it handles financial judgments against its agencies.

Contention

Notable points of potential contention could arise around how the state allocates funds for similar legal settlements in the future. While HB 126 serves a specific purpose, ongoing legal challenges against state departments may lead to discussions about funding priorities and the implications of repeated litigation. This bill could set a precedent for how the state manages its budget concerning legal judgments, which may invoke discussions on accountability and reform in the management of state agency practices.