Opinion ID: 3169271
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mutually Explicit Understanding

Text: Martin Marietta also urges us to find that it has established a property interest based on a mutually explicit understanding fostered by KDOT—that material complying with the Standard Specifications will remain on the preapproved list. Although a claim of entitlement may be grounded on specific statutory or contractual provisions, it need not be. “A person’s interest in a benefit is a ‘property’ interest for due process purposes if there are . . . rules or mutually explicit understandings that support his claim of entitlement to the benefit and that he may invoke at a hearing.” Casias v. City of Raton, 738 F.2d 392, 394 (10th Cir. 1984) (quoting Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601 (1972)); see Perry, 408 U.S. at 602–03 (holding for the first time that a protected property interest derived from a mutually explicit understanding rather than laws or regulations). In our view, KDOT has expressly 40 stated the requirements to win placement on its approved lists and, as explained, Martin Marietta cannot meet them.