Hike v. State
297 Neb. 212
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2008 the State condemned 1.05 acres of the Hikes’ property for a highway expansion; a jury determined compensation and this Court affirmed in Hike I.
- During construction in August 2011, heavy machinery made a deep roadway cut about 61 feet from the Hikes’ home and the Hikes observed structural damage to their house.
- The Hikes retained experts who attributed about $51,829 in damage to the construction; at the condemnation trial the Hikes attempted to introduce that damage evidence.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine excluding the structural-damage evidence as not proximately caused by the taking; this Court affirmed that evidentiary ruling in Hike I.
- The Hikes later filed a separate inverse-condemnation complaint on April 17, 2015, seeking compensation for the structural damage; 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, holding the inverse-condemnation claim accrued in August 2011 and was barred by § 25-218; the Hikes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars the State from asserting SOL defense | The State previously argued Hikes should bring structural-damage claims in a separate action, so it is estopped from now asserting time bar | The State’s prior position concerned admissibility and did not unequivocally concede that a separate action would be timely; no bad-faith intent to mislead | No estoppel: State not judicially estopped to raise SOL defense |
| Which statute of limitations governs inverse-condemnation claims against the State | § 25-202 (10-year) should apply because inverse condemnation is like actions to recover title/possession | § 25-218 (2-year) applies to claims against the State and is the more specific legislative expression | § 25-218 governs inverse-condemnation claims against the State (2-year limit) |
| When did the Hikes “bring” their inverse-condemnation claim for SOL purposes | The Hikes contend pleading or raising damage in Hike I constituted bringing the action within 2 years | The Hikes did not amend or file a separate complaint until April 17, 2015; “bringing an action” means instituting suit | Claim accrued in Aug. 2011; Hikes did not sue within 2 years; claim time-barred |
| Whether Hikes may press a constitutional (self-executing) right to compensation despite SOL | Hikes assert article I, § 21 is self-executing and entitles them to compensation irrespective of statute | State and court: constitutional right is enforced through statutes; SOL defenses are applicable and procedural | Court declined to consider this constitutional argument (not assigned in opening brief); SOL bars the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60 (affirming exclusion of post-taking structural damage evidence in condemnation trial)
- Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714 (construing time to sue the State for taking/damaging property under 2-year statute)
- Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521 (applying § 25-218 to suits against the State for property damage)
- Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608 (holding § 25-202 governed inverse-condemnation actions not brought against the State)
- Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270 (applying § 25-202 to inverse-condemnation claim against a municipality)
- Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768 (discussing effect of a pending appeal on trial-court jurisdiction)
- Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 291 Neb. 278 (noting bad faith or intent to mislead is required to invoke judicial estoppel)