Legal Opinion

Hammond v. Kmart Corporation

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided October 25, 2013No. 19-1764PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LYNCH, Chief Judge.

Chenell Hammond, a retail customer, appeals from the dismissal of her action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Kmart Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation (collectively, “Kmart”), where she successfully purchased goods using the store’s layaway process. The district court granted Kmart’s motion to dismiss because Hammond’s pleadings were insufficient to state a claim under § 1981. It dismissed the federal claim, but dismissed without prejudice a pendent state law claim. We affirm on the narrow facts of this case and the paucity of the allegations.

I

Hammond filed suit on…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Runyon v. McCrarySupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of CarolinaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  2. Doe v. Brown Univ.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2018
  3. Daniel E. Hall v. Twitter, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2023
  4. Jimmy Smith v. Roger Williams University Law SchoolDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2023
  5. (PS) Orji v. Walmart Superstores, IncDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API