SID No. 67 v. State
961 N.W.2d 796
Neb.2021Background
- Sanitary and Improvement District No. 67 (SID 67) is a Nebraska political subdivision responsible for streets and roads in the Normandy Hills subdivision near Bellevue.
- NDOT and Sarpy County reconstructed Highway 75 in 2003-04, blocking two direct access points from Normandy Hills and rerouting traffic via an indirect route.
- SID 67 sued in county court seeking compensation by inverse condemnation, alleging the dedication plat conveyed ownership of the subdivision roads to SID 67 and that the rerouting damaged its property; county-appointed appraisers awarded $0.00.
- SID 67 sought review in district court; NDOT and Sarpy County moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed on the pleadings, finding SID 67 was not the real party in interest.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the standing challenge was facial (no extrinsic evidence required or allowed) and (2) SID 67, as a state-created political subdivision, is not a “person” holding “private property” and therefore cannot bring an inverse condemnation claim against the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have considered extrinsic evidence (plat) when defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing | SID 67: ownership of the roads is a factual question; the plat should be considered (convert to summary judgment or evidentiary stage) | NDOT/Sarpy County: motions were facial; court should decide on the pleadings and not consider outside evidence | Held: challenge was facial; court properly limited review to pleadings and did not err in excluding extrinsic evidence |
| Whether SID 67 is the real party in interest for an inverse condemnation claim against the State | SID 67: it owns the roads (by dedication) and thus suffered a taking/damage and may recover compensation | NDOT/Sarpy County: SID 67 is a state-created political subdivision, not a “person” holding “private property,” and therefore lacks standing to assert a constitutional taking against the State | Held: SID 67 is not a “person” with “private property”; it lacks standing to bring inverse condemnation against the State; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- S.I.D. No. 95 v. City of Omaha, 221 Neb. 272, 376 N.W.2d 767 (Neb. 1985) (political subdivisions hold property at the Legislature's pleasure and cannot claim constitutional taking against the State)
- Rock County v. Spire, 235 Neb. 434, 455 N.W.2d 763 (Neb. 1990) (county is not a “person” for takings protections and may hold only property dedicated to public use)
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984) (federal takings of state-owned property require compensation because of separate sovereigns)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (defining inverse condemnation and a landowner’s federal remedy)
- United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946) (takings clause does not constrain sovereigns transferring property between governmental uses)