Hike v. State
899 N.W.2d 614
Neb.2017Background
- The Hikes owned property from which the State (Nebraska Dept. of Roads) took 1.05 acres in 2008 for a highway expansion; a condemnation jury verdict was affirmed on appeal (Hike I).
- In August 2011 construction near the Hikes’ house allegedly caused structural damage to their residence; experts estimated damages of about $51,829.
- At the condemnation trial the Hikes sought to introduce evidence of that damage; the trial court excluded it as not proximately resulting from the taking, and this evidentiary ruling was affirmed in Hike I.
- The Hikes did not amend their complaint in the condemnation case to assert an inverse-condemnation claim; instead they appealed the evidentiary exclusion.
- On April 17, 2015 the Hikes filed a separate inverse-condemnation suit against the State for the structural damage; the State moved for summary judgment asserting the 2-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-218.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding § 25-218 governs inverse-condemnation claims against the State and that the Hikes’ claim accrued in August 2011 and was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State is judicially estopped from asserting statute-of-limitations defense | State previously argued damage evidence should be brought in a separate action; Hikes say State can't now argue that separate action is time-barred | State says prior positions concerned admissibility at that time and are not inconsistent with asserting limitations now | No judicial estoppel — State may assert limitations defense |
| Which statute of limitations applies to inverse-condemnation claims against the State | § 25-202 (10-year statute for actions to recover title/possession) should apply | § 25-218 (2-year statute for claims against the State) applies because it specifically governs claims against the State | § 25-218 (2 years) governs inverse-condemnation actions against the State |
| When did the Hikes’ inverse-condemnation claim accrue / were they within the limitations period | Hikes contend they effectively brought the claim by asserting damage evidence in Hike I, within 2 years | State contends the inverse-condemnation action was not ‘‘brought’’ until the separate suit filed in 2015; cause accrued in Aug 2011 | Claim accrued in Aug 2011; filing in 2015 was beyond 2 years — claim barred |
| Whether the Hikes may raise a constitutional (self-executing) right-to-compensation argument | Hikes assert article I, § 21 guarantees an unequivocal right to compensation (argument conflicts with limitations defense) | State / court: argument not timely raised on initial brief | Court declined to consider the constitutional argument as it was not properly assigned or timely raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60 (Neb. 2014) (prior appeal affirming exclusion of post-taking damage evidence)
- Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768 (Neb. 1993) (effect of a pending appeal on trial court jurisdiction; discussed exception cases)
- Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714 (Neb. 1943) (applying § 25-218 two-year bar to suits against the State for taking/damaging property)
- Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521 (Neb. 1973) (similar application of § 25-218)
- Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608 (Neb. 1977) (holding § 25-202 governed inverse-condemnation claims against municipalities)
- Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270 (Neb. 1996) (applying § 25-202 to inverse-condemnation actions against a city)