due process protection. That the ODE granted the Nosse Plaintiffs a non-renewable EdChoice scholarship as a token of good will does not alter the Court’s conclusion. The ODE’s scholarship offer was not made pursuant to the Nosse Plaintiffs meeting all of the program’s statutory eligibility requirements; it was an offer born of,empathy. (See Doc. 30, Ex. 4, Euclid Situation at 1). As such, the ODE made clear that the scholarship offered was finite: one year, nonrenewable. The Court acknowledges that the offer and acceptance of this one-year EdChoice scholarship may have created a legitimate claim of entitlement to a scholarship for the 2012-2013 school year based on a mutually explicit understanding between the parties. See Geriatrics, Inc. v. Harris, 640 F.2d 262, 264 (10th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). But the Nosse Plaintiffs do not allege that
recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets recognizing rule holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property recognizing that a protectable property interest can be secured by statute legal rule or through a mutually explicit understanding