Hike v. State
297 Neb. 212
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The Hikes owned property from which the State condemned 1.05 acres in 2008 for U.S. Highway 75; a jury verdict on compensation was later affirmed on appeal (Hike I).
- During highway construction in August 2011 (after the taking), the Hikes’ house allegedly suffered structural damage attributed by experts to the State’s contractor.
- At trial in the condemnation action, the Hikes attempted to introduce evidence of that post-taking structural damage; the district court excluded it on motion in limine as not proximately caused by the taking.
- The Hikes appealed that evidentiary ruling and lost in Hike I; they later filed a separate inverse condemnation complaint on April 17, 2015 seeking compensation for the structural damage.
- The State moved for summary judgment arguing the inverse condemnation claim was barred by the 2-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-218; the district court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- The Hikes appealed, arguing (1) the State should be judicially estopped from asserting limitations, (2) § 25-202 (10-year) should apply instead of § 25-218 (2-year), and (3) their filing in Hike I tolled or satisfied the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State is judicially estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense | The State previously argued the Hikes should bring structural-damage claims separately; estoppel should bar the State from now claiming the separate claim is time-barred | The State’s prior position concerned admissibility in the condemnation trial, not the timeliness of a later separate suit; no inconsistent intent or bad faith | No estoppel; prior arguments addressed admissibility and did not preclude the State from asserting limitations later |
| Which statute of limitations applies to an inverse condemnation claim against the State | § 25-202 (10-year) should apply as the more appropriate general limitation for land-related claims | § 25-218 (2-year) specifically governs claims against the State and supersedes the more general § 25-202 | § 25-218 (2-year) applies to inverse condemnation actions against the State because it is the more specific statutory expression when the State is the defendant |
| When did the Hikes’ cause of action accrue / did they bring the action within the applicable period | Filing or asserting the damage during the pending condemnation/review (Hike I) counted as bringing the inverse claim within 2 years | “Bringing an action” requires instituting a separate suit or amending the complaint; the Hikes did not file an independent inverse condemnation action until April 17, 2015 | The cause of action accrued in August 2011; the Hikes did not bring a separate inverse condemnation action within 2 years, so the claim is time-barred |
| Whether a constitutional/self-executing right to compensation avoids statutory limitations | (Raised late) Article I, § 21 guarantees compensation and thus limitations should not bar recovery | Argument was not properly preserved or assigned on appeal; untimely raised in reply brief | Not considered on appeal because it was not assigned as error in the initial brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60 (2014) (prior appeal affirming exclusion of structural-damage evidence in condemnation trial)
- Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714 (1943) (applied § 25-218 2-year limitation to suits against the State for taking/damaging property)
- Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521 (1973) (discussed § 25-218 in the context of takings against the State)
- Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608 (1977) (applied § 25-202 ten-year limitation to inverse condemnation claims not brought against the State)
- Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270 (1996) (applied § 25-202 to inverse condemnation claims against political subdivisions)
- Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768 (1993) (discussed effect of pending appeals on trial court jurisdiction)
- Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (2016) (standard of review for summary judgment and statutory-interpretation principles)