Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212

The Hikes owned property from which the State took 1.05 acres in 2008 for US Hwy 75 expansion; construction began in Aug. 2011 and allegedly caused structural damage to their home.
The Hikes sued in a condemnation proceeding (Hike I) to recover compensation for the taking; they sought to introduce evidence of the post-taking structural damage but the trial court excluded that evidence via motion in limine.
On appeal in Hike I, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed exclusion, holding the structural damage was not proximately caused by the taking and therefore not compensable in the condemnation proceeding.
The Hikes later (Apr. 17, 2015) filed a separate inverse condemnation suit against the State to recover for the structural damage allegedly caused by the 2011 construction.
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 State is judicially estopped from raising statute-of-limitations defense	State previously argued evidence of damage should be raised in a separate action, so it should not now assert the claim is time-barred	The State’s earlier position concerned admissibility in condemnation; it did not preclude asserting a limitations defense later	Court: No judicial estoppel — State may assert § 25-218 defense
Which statute of limitations applies to inverse condemnation against the State	§ 25-202 (10-year) should apply because inverse condemnation is like an action to recover title/possession	§ 25-218 (2-year) governs claims against the State and is the more specific legislative expression	Court: § 25-218 (2-year) applies to inverse condemnation claims against the State
Whether Hikes timely brought their inverse condemnation claim	Claim was effectively raised in Hike I (so within 2 years)	Bringing an action requires instituting a separate suit; Hikes did not file a separate complaint within 2 years	Court: Claim accrued Aug. 2011; Hikes filed in Apr. 2015 — barred by § 25-218
Whether Hikes may assert a constitutional (self-executing) right to compensation now	Article I, § 21 guarantees an unequivocal right to compensation, so limitations should not bar	Argument not properly raised on appeal (not assigned in opening brief)	Court: Constitutional argument forfeited — not considered on appeal

Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60, 846 N.W.2d 205 (2014) (affirming exclusion of post-taking structural damage evidence in condemnation trial)
Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714, 7 N.W.2d 632 (1943) (applied 2-year limitations for suits against the State for taking/damaging property)
Czarnick v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 190 Neb. 521, 209 N.W.2d 595 (1973) (same rule applying § 25-218 to claims against the State)
Krambeck v. City of Gretna, 198 Neb. 608, 254 N.W.2d 691 (1977) (held 10-year § 25-202 applies to inverse condemnation claims against local entities)
Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270, 543 N.W.2d 161 (1996) (applied § 25-202 to inverse condemnation against a city)
Sports Courts of Omaha v. Meginnis, 242 Neb. 768, 497 N.W.2d 38 (1993) (addresses trial-court jurisdiction while an appeal is pending)