only Minnesota ease that Movers Warehouse relies on is Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake, 310 N.W.2d 474 (Minn.1981), a case involving the renewal of a liquor license. Movers Warehouse argues that liquor licenses are analogous to bingo hall licenses for purposes of the property-interest analysis. Movers Warehouse contends that in Tamarac “the Minnesota Supreme Court clearly found that a holder of a liquor license has a property interest in its license once granted.” Movers Warehouse’s Reply Brief at 1. Mover ed that since the turn of the century the Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently held that the issuance of a state license generally does not create a protected property interest in renewal of the license. See, e.g., State v. Hovorka, 100 Minn. 249, 110 N.W. 870, 871 (1907) (<HOLDING>). We thus conclude that Movers Warehouse has
holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause holding that liberty interests that are protected by procedural due process are generally limited to freedom from restraint holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state holding that licenses issued under minnesota law do not create property interests in renewal that are protected by due process clause holding that privileges licenses certificates and franchises qualify as property interests for purposes of procedural due process but that due process only becomes relevant where such property is deprived