of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs submitted only one affidavit, that of Linda Scogin Carbo and it did not contradict any of the deposition testimony. Although plaintiffs assert in their assignments of error that there were disputed issues of material fact they actually argued that the facts established did not entitle defendants to summary judgment. 2 . We note that the Nuckolls court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s entire action, including his claim for damages sustained within two years of his filing suit, saying that LSA-R.S. 9:5624 "precludes any suit being brought after two years from the first occurrence of any damage after completion of the public works.” 337 So.2d at 315 (emphasis added). But see Young v. International Paper Co., 179 La. 803, 155 So. 231 (1934) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, defendants have not
holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due holding that prescription is not suspended by the fact that damage was continuous but ran on each item from the date it was inflicted