Hike v. State
297 Neb. 212
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The Hikes owned property from which the State condemned 1.05 acres in 2008 for US Highway 75; a jury trial resolved the condemnation valuation and was affirmed on appeal (Hike I).
- During construction in August 2011, heavy machinery operated near the Hikes’ house and caused alleged structural damage to the residence.
- The Hikes disclosed expert damage opinions during the condemnation trial; the district court sustained the State’s motion in limine and excluded evidence of structural damage as not proximately caused by the taking.
- On appeal in Hike I the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed exclusion, noting the damage occurred after the taking and was not compensable in that condemnation proceeding.
- The Hikes later filed a separate inverse-condemnation claim on April 17, 2015 seeking compensation for the structural damage; the State moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-218 (two-year limitations for claims against the State).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding § 25-218 governs inverse condemnation claims against the State and the Hikes’ claim accrued in August 2011 and was filed more than two years later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State is judicially estopped from raising a statute-of-limitations defense | Hikes: State previously argued Hikes should bring a separate action, so State cannot now assert limitations bar | State: Prior position addressed evidence admissibility, not timeliness; no inconsistent, misleading positions | Rejected estoppel; no bad-faith inconsistency and prior arguments concerned admissibility, not a ruling that filing was required or time-barred |
| Which statute of limitations governs inverse-condemnation claims against the State | Hikes: § 25-202 (10-year) should apply to inverse-condemnation claims | State: § 25-218 (2-year) applies specifically to claims against the State and thus governs | § 25-218 applies to inverse-condemnation claims brought against the State because it is the more specific statute regarding actions against the State |
| When did the Hikes’ inverse-condemnation cause of action accrue / was their claim timely | Hikes: Claim was effectively raised during Hike I and thus within two years | State: Cause accrued when the damage occurred (Aug 2011); the Hikes did not file a separate action within two years | Court: Cause accrued in Aug 2011; Hikes did not bring a separate action until Apr 17, 2015; claim is time-barred under § 25-218 |
| Whether the Hikes may assert a constitutional self-executing right to compensation to avoid the limitations issue | Hikes (in reply): Article I, § 21 is self-executing and guarantees compensation regardless of statutory limits | State: Not argued in Hikees’ initial brief; procedural default | Not considered—argument not properly assigned in initial brief and first raised in reply brief, thus untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60, 846 N.W.2d 205 (affirming exclusion of post-taking damage evidence)
- Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768, 497 N.W.2d 38 (rule on divested jurisdiction and exceptions)
- Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714, 7 N.W.2d 632 (applying § 25-218 to suits against the State for taking/damaging property)
- Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521, 209 N.W.2d 595 (same rule as Bordy for state takings)
- Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608, 254 N.W.2d 691 (inverse-condemnation limitation analysis applying § 25-202 to non-state defendants)
- Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270, 543 N.W.2d 161 (applied § 25-202 in inverse-condemnation context against a municipality)