we hold that G & G has suffered a deprivation of a protectible property interest as a result of the state’s action. B. Process Due We now examine whether the state accorded G & G due process when it effected this deprivation. As a general rule, the Due Process Clause requires that individuals receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of property. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 48, 114 S.Ct. 492, 498, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993). Twenty five years ago, the Supreme Court announced an exception to this rule for “extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1995, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S .Ed.2d 265 (<HOLDING>). Where extraordinary circumstances justify
holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding that states interest in maintaining public confidence in bank management justifies postdeprivation hearing for removal of bank manager holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check