Strode v. City of Ashland, 295 Neb. 44

Background

Randy and Helen Strode own adjacent lots in Ashland, Nebraska, zoned Public (PUB) under a 1998 ordinance restricting commercial uses; the Strodes operated a fencing manufacture and salvage business on the property.
Between Nov. 2002 and June 10, 2003, the City zoning administrator repeatedly notified Randy that the use violated the ordinance and on June 10, 2003 mailed written notice threatening legal action.
The City sued for injunction in 2003; the district court enjoined the salvage storage but allowed the continued nonconforming manufacture use; Randy appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed (not addressing ripeness of an inverse‑condemnation claim).
On June 23, 2004 the county notified Randy that semitrailer use of a nearby bridge violated its 14‑ton posted load limit; the Strodes can alternatively reach the property via a railroad underpass with a height restriction.
On September 5, 2013 the Strodes sued the City and Saunders County for inverse condemnation based on the zoning ordinance enforcement and the bridge load limit; the district court dismissed Randy’s zoning claim (claim preclusion), held Helen’s zoning claim time‑barred, and granted summary judgment on the bridge takings claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Randy's zoning inverse‑condemnation claim is barred (preclusion / statute of limitations)	Randy: claim was not ripe during 2003 litigation, so not precluded or time‑barred	City: claim accrued when City implemented ordinance (notice/enforcement), so barred by 10‑year statute	Court: claim barred — statute of limitations began by June 10, 2003 (City's enforcement notice); Randy’s 2013 suit was untimely
Whether Helen's separate zoning takings claim is timely	Helen: statute began after 2003 litigation ended or factual dispute about when she received notice	City: as joint owner she had the same rights; limitations ran by June 10, 2003 (or upon constructive notice)	Court: barred — coowner’s rights accrued at same time as Randy’s; suit filed after 10‑year limit
Whether the bridge 14‑ton load limit constitutes a regulatory taking	Strodes: load limit denies reasonable access for semitrailer operations and thus effects a taking	City/County: reasonable access remains (underpass or smaller loads); regulation predated purchase; no per se taking	Court: no taking — Penn Central factors favor defendants; access alternatives exist; no evidence of decreased property value or reasonable investment‑backed expectations
Whether remaining factual disputes (bridge authority, causation, damages) preclude summary judgment	Strodes: disputes over who controls bridge/zoning and lack of prima facie proof by defendants	Defendants: even if factual disputes exist, they are immaterial because no taking occurred and plaintiffs failed to show causation/damages	Court: summary judgment appropriate — disputed facts are not material to the outcome; plaintiffs failed to show causation or distinct injury

Key Cases Cited

Western Fertilizer v. City of Alliance, 244 Neb. 95 (1993) (statute of limitations for inverse condemnation accrues when government exercises dominion/interest over property)
Steuben v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 270 (1996) (inverse condemnation accrual when injured party gains right to sue; discussion of physical taking accrual)
Scofield v. State, 276 Neb. 215 (2008) (federal and Nebraska takings law are coterminous; regulatory takings framework)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (ad hoc Penn Central factors for non‑categorical regulatory takings)
Lindner v. Kindig, 285 Neb. 386 (2013) (statute of limitations and accrual issues in constitutional challenges to local government actions)
Rodehorst Bros. v. City of Norfolk Bd. of Adjustment, 287 Neb. 779 (2014) (diminution in value alone is insufficient to prove regulatory taking)