Hike v. State
297 Neb. 212
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The Hikes owned property from which the State acquired 1.05 acres for Highway 75 in 2008; construction began in August 2011 and allegedly caused structural damage to their home.
- During the condemnation trial (Hike I), the Hikes sought to introduce expert evidence of that structural damage; the trial court excluded it as not proximately caused by the taking and thus irrelevant to the condemnation claim.
- The Hikes appealed the exclusion in Hike I; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion, noting the damage occurred after the taking.
- The Hikes did not amend their complaint during the condemnation proceeding to assert a separate inverse-condemnation claim; instead, they waited and filed a separate inverse-condemnation complaint on April 17, 2015.
- 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 the motion and dismissed the Hikes’ complaint.
- 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 when filed in 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State is judicially estopped from asserting statute-of-limitations defense | State previously said structural-damage remedy must be brought as separate action; estoppel should bar State from later claiming time bar | State’s earlier position concerned admissibility in condemnation trial and did not preclude later asserting limitations; no bad-faith change | No estoppel — State not barred; positions not inconsistent and Hikes failed to show intent to mislead |
| Which statute of limitations applies to inverse-condemnation claims against the State | § 25-202 (10-year land actions) should govern, as more specific to land compensation claims | § 25-218 (2-year claims against the State) applies because it specifically addresses claims against the State | § 25-218 governs inverse-condemnation actions against the State (2-year limit) |
| When did the statute of limitations accrue / was claim timely | Claim was asserted in Hike I and thus timely within 2 years | Accrual was when the damage occurred (Aug 2011); bringing an action requires instituting a separate legal claim — the Hikes did not do so until 2015 | Claim accrued in Aug 2011; Hikes did not bring a separate action within 2 years — claim barred |
| Whether Hikes’ constitutional/self-executing takings argument avoids limitations | Constitutional right to compensation is self-executing and not subject to § 25-218 | Argument was not properly raised in initial brief and is untimely for appeal | Court did not consider it — argument not assigned in initial brief and thus forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60 (2014) (prior appeal affirming exclusion of post-taking structural-damage evidence)
- Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714 (1943) (applied § 25-218 two-year bar to state takings claims)
- Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608 (1977) (held § 25-202 applied to inverse-condemnation claims against non-state entities)
- Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270 (1996) (applied § 25-202 to actions against municipal defendants)
- Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768 (1993) (discusses jurisdictional effects of pending appeals)
- Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44 (2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)