Darryl Morris and Leggitt Nailor v. Office Max, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff’s § 1982 personal property claim failed for the same reason the plaintiff’s § 1981 claim failed
• holding that where a defendant did not deny plaintiffs admittance or service and did not ask plaintiffs to leave the store, defendant did not deprive plaintiffs of the right to make and enforce a contract
• holding that by merely browsing at time stamps on a shelf, plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate that they would have attempted to purchase the time stamps even if they had not been approached by the police”
• stating that “[a] claim for interference with the right to make and enforce a contract must allege the actual loss of a contract interest”
• holding that to succeed on a § 1981 or a § 1982 claim, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, intentional discrimination con- cerning the making and enforcing of a contract or the sale or lease of real property
• noting that, where claim was interference with prospective contractual relations, “[w]hile the incident ... was unfortunate and undoubtedly disconcerting and humiliating, it does not constitute a violation of the statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).