Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Behavioral Medicine Consulting et al. v. CHG Companies
When entities contract as part of a business relationship, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals generally holds them to the benefit of the agreed-on bargain even if one party subsequently claims it expected a deal contrary to the contract’s express, clear and unambiguous terms.
Behavioral Medicine Consulting and CHG Companies signed a services contract that allowed CHG Companies to both place plaintiff Keith Brown in an employment position and cancel that placement.
CHG Companies exercised both rights the next week when it placed Brown in a position but canceled it shortly afterward. Behavioral Medicine Consulting argued that the cancellation constituted a breach of contract, breach of implied duties and breach of fiduciary duty; contradicted its justified expectations; conflicted with its economic relations; and contravened public policy.
The 10th Circuit concluded that these claims failed because CHG Companies merely availed itself of the benefit of its bargain.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Scott Lowe challenged his conviction for drug trafficking and unlawful possession of a firearm. He argued that the government intruded on his Fourth Amendment privacy rights when it searched a storage unit he was using in his apartment building without permission from the manager.
When Denver Police Department officers searched the storage unit, they uncovered incriminating evidence linking Lowe to drug trafficking crimes.
Lowe moved to suppress the evidence. He claimed a possessory intent in the unit that required the officers to obtain a search warrant first. The district court denied the motion.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Lowe failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the storage unit. It also found that sufficient evidence supported his conviction, and it found no legal error in sentencing.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.