But we are regularly reminded by our own Court of Appeals that opinions by district judges do not create precedents in their own bailiwicks, let alone on foreign soil.
And for its part our Court of Appeals has regularly continued to make it plain that “the ‘mutually explicit understandings' that constitute property interests under the holding of
Perry cannot be based on the representations of government officials who are not authorized to make such representations” (
Wolf v. City of Fitchburg, 870 F.2d 1327, 1334 (7th Cir.1989), quoted and reconfirmed in
Santella v. City of Chicago, 936 F.2d 328, 331 (7th Cir.1991)). Nothing that is alleged in the FAC about the practice followed by Northlake's prior Mayor satisfies the need for a binding and enforceable right—to the contrary, the FAC says nothing at all about any ordinance adopted, or any other action taken, by Northlake's governing body that is authorized to make such commitments (
Santella, 936 F.2d at 331–32).