Branham v. Snow’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 896 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Burks v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2006), Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Bragdon v. Abbott
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The duration of the risk posed by the employee’s condition; (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm that might result; (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) The imminence of the potential harm.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mr. Branham’s treatment regimen allows him to avoid severe hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes, and protects him from the long term consequences of Type I diabetes .... For Mr. Branham, [his] negative side effects are many. He is significantly restricted as to the manner in which he can eat as compared to the average person in the general population. His dietary intake is dictated by his diabetes, and must respond, with significant precision, to the blood sugar readings he takes four times a day. Depending upon the level of his blood sugar, Mr. Branham may have to eat immediately, may have to wait to eat, or may have to eat certain types of food. Even after the mitigating measures of his treatment regimen, he is never free to eat whatever he pleases because he risks both mild and severe bodily reactions if he disregards his blood sugar readings. He must adjust his diet to compensate for any greater exertion, stress, or illness that he experiences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mr. Branham must check his blood sugar level four to five times a day. He controls his blood sugar through the use of insulin and through diet and exercise. The readings produced by Mr. Bran-ham’s blood sugar tests dictate the amount of insulin that he must administer, as well as when and what type and amount of food he can eat. It is possible for Mr. Branham to skip or delay meals on occasion. Although Mr. Branham never has experienced a severe hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic reaction, approximately once every three weeks he does suffer from minor reactions to low blood sugar, including trembling and sweating. At all times, Mr. Branham keeps with him additional insulin and a certain amount of carbohydrates, for use in the event his blood sugar level falls below an acceptable level.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.