Scheerer v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[although there can be no doubt that Scheerer suffered from pain and signifi cant inconvenience from his progressively worsening diabetic condition, he does not point to enough evidence in the record to show that he was prevented from performing, or was otherwise, severely restricted in, any major life activities. During the pertinent time period, Scheerer did not experience many of the more severe symptoms of diabetes, including severe hypoglycemia, seizures, or loss of consciousness. This suggests that his diabetes had not yet worsened to such a stage where it severely restricted his major life activities. In a similar vein, Scheerer did not present evidence showing that his dietary restrictions were sufficiently severe to rise to the level of a substantial limitation. That is, the predominant purpose of his dietary restrictions was to lose weight — as millions of other non-disabled individuals seek to do — rather than to control rapid fluctuations of his blood sugar levels that could lead to immediate and dire consequences. Moreover, his diet followed that general contours of the diets of most individuals seeking to lose weight. Thus, there is nothing in the record tending to show that his dietary restrictions were of the type of severe dietary restrictions that if not followed would lead to “dire and immediate consequences,” or alternatively, were so unusually restrictive that they could impose a substantial limitation on the major life activity of eating.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 469 F. Supp. 2d 861 - Davenport v. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality · Burks v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

2. “prolonged, severe and long-term sleep difficulties [] can amount to a substantial limitation in the major life activity of sleeping.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burks v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

3. “that he was prevented from performing , or was otherwise severely restricted in, any major life activities”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 311 F. Supp. 3d 928 - Cloutier v. Gojet Airlines, LLC