Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212

The Hikes owned property from which the State condemned 1.05 acres in 2008 for Highway 75 expansion; a jury verdict on compensation was later affirmed on appeal (Hike I).
In August 2011, construction near the Hikes’ house caused alleged structural damage (estimated ~$51,829) attributed by their experts to the State’s contractor work after the taking.
At the condemnation trial, the district court granted the State’s motion in limine and excluded evidence of structural damage as not proximately caused by the taking; the exclusion was affirmed on appeal in Hike I.
The Hikes did not amend their complaint in the condemnation action to assert an inverse condemnation claim; instead they appealed the evidentiary ruling in Hike I.
The Hikes filed a separate inverse condemnation suit against the State on April 17, 2015; the State moved for summary judgment asserting Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-218’s 2-year statute of limitations.
The district court granted summary judgment for the State, finding the Hikes’ inverse condemnation claim accrued in August 2011 and was time-barred under § 25-218; the Hikes appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State is judicially estopped from asserting statute-of-limitations defense	State previously argued structural damage should be brought as a separate action; Hikes say State can’t now assert limitations	State says its prior position concerned admissibility at the condemnation trial and is not inconsistent with a limitations defense	No estoppel—State’s prior arguments were about admissibility and not inconsistent; estoppel not invoked absent bad faith
Which statute of limitations applies to inverse condemnation against the State	§ 25-202 (10-year) should apply because inverse condemnation is like a land recovery action	§ 25-218 (2-year) applies to claims against the State and is the more specific statute when the State is defendant	§ 25-218 governs inverse condemnation claims against the State (2-year limit)
Whether asserting the structural-damage claim in Hike I satisfied the requirement to “bring” an action within 2 years	Hikes contend the claim was brought in Hike I (so within 2 years)	State says bringing an action requires suing/instituting proceedings specifically for inverse condemnation (e.g., amending complaint); Hikes didn’t do that until 2015	Claim was not brought until April 17, 2015; cause accrued Aug 2011; claim barred by 2-year statute

Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60, 846 N.W.2d 205 (Neb. 2014) (affirming exclusion of post-taking structural-damage evidence)
Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608, 254 N.W.2d 691 (Neb. 1977) (held 10-year limitation applied to inverse condemnation against nonstate defendants)
Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714, 7 N.W.2d 632 (Neb. 1943) (applied 2-year limitation for suits against the State for takings)
Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521, 209 N.W.2d 595 (Neb. 1973) (applied § 25-218 to takings claims against the State)
Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768, 497 N.W.2d 38 (Neb. 1993) (discussed effect of perfected appeal on trial court jurisdiction)
Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270, 543 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 1996) (applied 10-year statute to inverse condemnation against a municipality)