creates a liberty interest “by establishing ‘substantive predicates’ to govern official decision-making, and, further, by mandating the outcome to be reached upon a finding that the relevant criteria have been met.” Id. at 462, 109 S.Ct. 1904. In addition, the Supreme Court articulated a requirement “that the regulations contain ‘explicitly mandatory language,’ i.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations’ substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow, in order to create a liberty interest.” Id. at 463, 109 S.Ct. 1904. ' These principles are equally applicable to an analysis of property interests, and indeed, lower courts have so applied them. See, e.g., Kim Construction Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees, 14 F.3d 1243, 1247 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In order to show that NVCC’s admissions
holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements recognizing privilege under federal rules holding that constitutionally protected entitlement to a contract award was not created by publicized competitive bidding rules for awarding municipal contracts when rules themselves contained express reservation of citys right to reject any and all bids holding that when an agencys interpretation of its own rules flies in the face of the language of the rules themselves it is owed no deference