Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212

Leo and Joanna Hike owned property from which the State condemned 1.05 acres in 2008 for Highway 75; a jury trial on condemnation damages was held and upheld on appeal (Hike I).
During highway construction in August 2011 the Hikes discovered structural damage to their home, which experts attributed to the construction and estimated at $51,829.
The trial court excluded evidence of that post-taking structural damage in the condemnation trial as not proximately caused by the taking; this exclusion was affirmed on appeal in Hike I.
The Hikes did not amend their complaint to assert inverse condemnation during that proceeding; instead they appealed the evidentiary ruling and later filed a separate inverse condemnation suit on April 17, 2015, seeking compensation for the structural damage.
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.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars the State from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense	State previously argued Hikes should bring structural-damage claim separately; therefore it cannot now argue it is time-barred	The State’s prior position addressed admissibility of evidence, not limitation; no inconsistent success to estop	No estoppel — State not judicially estopped from asserting § 25-218 defense
Which statute of limitations applies to inverse-condemnation claims against the State	§ 25-202 (10-year) is the proper analogue for inverse condemnation	§ 25-218 (2-year) governs claims against the State and is more specific when the State is defendant	§ 25-218 (2-year) applies to inverse-condemnation suits against the State
When did the Hikes’ inverse-condemnation claim accrue / was it timely brought	Claim was asserted in prior proceeding (Hike I) and thus within limitations	Claim accrued when damage occurred in Aug 2011; a separate action was not brought until Apr 17, 2015	Cause accrued Aug 2011; suit filed in 2015 is time-barred under § 25-218
Whether the Hikes may raise a constitutional self-executing takings claim despite limitations	Article I, § 21 provides a self-executing right to compensation immune from statutory deadline argument	Argument not timely raised on appeal and not properly assigned	Not considered — constitutional argument was not properly assigned and was raised too late

Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60, 846 N.W.2d 205 (affirming exclusion of post-taking structural damage evidence in condemnation trial)
Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714, 7 N.W.2d 632 (holding 2-year limitations for suits against the State for taking or damaging property)
Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521, 209 N.W.2d 595 (applying § 25-218 to claims against the State)
Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608, 254 N.W.2d 691 (holding 10-year limitation applies for inverse-condemnation claims against local entities)
Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270, 543 N.W.2d 161 (applying 10-year statute for inverse-condemnation claims against a city)
Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768, 497 N.W.2d 38 (discussing jurisdictional effect of appeals and exceptions to divestiture rule)