date of filing rule in Louisiana

1993Miller v. Miller, 610 So.2d 183 (La.App. 3d Cir.1992).

1992LSA-R.S. 9:310; Broussard v. Broussard, 532 So.2d 281 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1988); Hogan v. Hogan, 549 So.2d 267, 273 (La.1989).

1979Even if it were now to be held that prior to its amendment Civil Code Article 160 allowed alimony to wives only and was unconstitutional (and this court does not so hold), this court would not be required or inclined to make the effective date of any termination of alimony retroactive to the date of filing the rule to terminate, nor would this court be required or inclined to apply such a holding to any alimony payments accrued prior to the date such judgment of termination would become definitive. *1300 See Frederic v. Frederic, 302 So.2d 903 (La.1974) and Bruner v. Bruner, 373 So.2d 971 (La.

1979Even if it were now to be held that prior to its amendment Civil Code Article 160 allowed alimony to wives only and was unconstitutional (and this court does not so hold), this court would not be required or inclined to make the effective date of any termination of alimony retroactive to the date of filing the rule to terminate, nor would this court be required or inclined to apply such a holding to any alimony payments accrued prior to the date such judgment of termination would become definitive. *1300 See Frederic v. Frederic, 302 So.2d 903 (La.1974) and Bruner v. Bruner, 373 So.2d 971 (La.

1978The matter was appealed de-volutively to this Court which agreed with the plaintiff and rendered the following judgment: “ * * * [T]here is judgment for the plaintiff enjoining the defendant from the disturbance of plaintiff’s possession, such injunction to remain in effect until such time as the defendant institutes expropriation proceedings for acquisition of the additional servitude necessary for the proposed uses. * * * ” (Wright v. Department of Highways of the State of Louisiana, 342 So.2d 230, 232 [La.App. 1st Cir. 1976], writ denied, 343 So.2d 1075 [La.1977] After the Supreme Court den

1962In State Through Dept. of Highways v. Barineau, 225 La. 340 , 72 So.2d 868 , at page 872, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in considering the precise question now before this Court, stated: “Although the lower court rendered the proper judgment, the statement contained in the Court’s ‘Reasons’ is incorrect, since the general rule that the State and its polical subdivisions, public boards or commissions are exempt from payment of court costs except ‘stenographers’ costs for taking testimony’, LSA-R.S. 13:4521, does not apply in expropriation proceedings.

1962In State Through Dept. of Highways v. Barineau, 225 La. 340 , 72 So.2d 868 , at page 872, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in considering the precise question now before this Court, stated: “Although the lower court rendered the proper judgment, the statement contained in the Court’s ‘Reasons’ is incorrect, since the general rule that the State and its polical subdivisions, public boards or commissions are exempt from payment of court costs except ‘stenographers’ costs for taking testimony’, LSA-R.S. 13:4521, does not apply in expropriation proceedings.