Hike v. State
297 Neb. 212
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2008 the State condemned 1.05 acres of the Hikes’ property for highway expansion; a jury awarded damages and the judgment was affirmed on appeal (Hike I).
- During pretrial construction in August 2011 the Hikes’ house sustained structural damage allegedly caused by State contractor work; experts estimated $51,829 in damage.
- At trial in Hike I the district court granted the State’s motion in limine excluding evidence of the post-taking structural damage; the exclusion was affirmed on appeal as not proximately caused by the taking.
- The Hikes later (April 17, 2015) filed a separate inverse condemnation action in district court asserting the structural-damage claim.
- The State moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by the 2-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-218; the district court granted summary judgment and the Hikes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars the State from asserting a limitations defense | State previously argued Hikes should bring structural-damage claim in separate action, so estoppel prevents State from now claiming it is time-barred | State contends its prior position concerned admissibility and did not preclude a future suit; no inconsistent intent or bad faith | No estoppel; State not judicially estopped from asserting § 25-218 defense |
| Which statute of limitations applies to inverse condemnation against the State | § 25-202 (10-year land actions) should govern inverse condemnation generally | § 25-218 (2-year claims against the State) governs actions against the State and is more specific | § 25-218 applies to inverse condemnation claims against the State |
| When did the Hikes’ inverse-condemnation claim accrue / was it timely | Hikes contend claim was sufficiently asserted in Hike I (so within 2 years) | State: action accrues when damage occurred (Aug 2011); Hikes did not file a separate suit within 2 years | Claim accrued Aug 2011; separate inverse action filed Apr 2015 — untimely under § 25-218 |
| Whether the Hikes may press a constitutional (self-executing art. I, § 21) timing argument on appeal | Hikes argue constitutional right to compensation overrides § 25-218 timing and was not properly raised below | State contends the constitutional-timing argument was not preserved/assigned as error | Court declined to consider the constitutional-timing argument as it was not properly assigned or timely raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60 (affirming exclusion of post-taking damage in condemnation trial)
- Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714 (applying § 25-218 two-year bar to suits against the State for taking/damaging property)
- Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608 (holding § 25-202 applied to inverse-condemnation claims against political subdivisions)
- Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768 (discussing effect of a pending appeal on subsequent related suits and exceptions to divested-jurisdiction rule)
- Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 291 Neb. 278 (explaining bad faith/intent requirement for invoking judicial estoppel)