# Bank of Jackson County v. L. James Cherry Raymond G. Naeyaert

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · January 11, 1993 · 980 F.2d 1362

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483652

## Case

- **Full name:** BANK OF JACKSON COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. James CHERRY; Raymond G. Naeyaert, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** January 11, 1993
- **Citations:** 980 F.2d 1362; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 209; 1993 WL 100
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Godbold
- **Judges:** Hatchett, Dubina, Godbold
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483652

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that,'for procedural due process rights to be violated, a plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property
- describing the elements as: “(1) a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty, or property; (2) governmental deprivation of that interest; and (3) the constitutional inadequacy of procedures accompanying the deprivation.”

## Opinion text

GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the court’s opinion insofar as it affirms the conclusion reached on summary judgment that BJC suffered no loss of property- interest.
I concur in the decision that no liberty interest was denied. I do so because plaintiff did not demonstrate the kind of injury to support a liberty interest. Its evidence showed only that it lost the benefit of the particular government loan program. BJC did not prove that its loan-making ability was impaired in other respects (or in general) or that its banking activities other than the making of government guaranteed loans was injured.
I concur in the decision concerning alleged denial of right of access to the courts. The defendants tried to force the bank to settle the dispute concerning the cows before suit was filed, by using as a lever the threat of cutting off loan guarantees. This court’s opinion recognizes that this was improper. But the attempt was unsuccessful. The agency filed suit against the bank, and the case was tried. BJC did not lose the benefit of access to the courts but rather, as a defendant, enjoyed the benefit of the court as a forum in which to settle its dispute.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483652. Public record. Not legal advice.