cost-benefit analysis (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

cost-benefit analysis in Tennessee

6 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. McKnight.green
haw · 2013 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019See State v. McKnight , 131 Hawai'i 379 , 319 P.3d 298 , 325 (2013) (Acoba, J., dissenting).

2019See State v. McKnight , 131 Hawai'i 379 , 319 P.3d 298 , 325 (2013) (Acoba, J., dissenting).

22
Farrar v. Hobbygreen
scotus · 1992 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024It also cited Farrah v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 115 (1992), for the notion that “fee-shifting statutes were never intended to produce windfalls for attorneys.” The Department did not -3- submit any affidavit or proof in support of its response, but it suggested that the entire litigation should not have reasonably taken more than 500 hours, so it proposed that a reasonable attorney fee would be about $213,750.

11
Jacobs v. Vineyards Condominium Ass'n (In Re Jacobs)green
ganb · 2005 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022In re Jacobs, 324 B.R. 402, 409 (Bankr.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Manufacturing Co. green
kan · 1993
2 sentences

2008Because it costs more to identify and warn consumers after the sale than before the product leaves the seller’s control, see Patton, 861 P.2d at 1313 , a jury should be required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when assessing liability.

2008Because it costs more to identify and warn consumers after the sale than before the product leaves the seller’s control, see Patton, 861 P.2d at 1313 , a jury should be required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when assessing liability.

22008–2008

Where else courts name it

CA 23 (1984–2025) LA 20 (1992–2024) TX 19 (2001–2019) OR 11 (2015–2023) PA 10 (1986–2026) MA 10 (1987–2020) IL 10 (2002–2026) WA 8 (1986–2017) IA 8 (1985–2017) UT 7 (2004–2024) NJ 6 (1987–2011) TN 6 (2008–2024) OH 6 (1981–2023) MO 5 (1992–2021) NM 4 (1993–2018) IN 3 (2015–2026) HI 3 (2007–2013) MD 3 (2004–2017) FL 3 (2003–2015) AL 2 (2013–2013) KS 2 (2024–2025) MT 2 (1982–2012) VT 2 (2000–2008) WI 2 (2011–2021) DE 2 (1983–2023) CT 2 (2008–2021) NY 2 (2024–2024) AZ 2 (1992–2013) MN 2 (2006–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check