Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301 (2026)

Benefit formula

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 560, s 2, eff. 12/1/2023.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 560, s 1, eff. 12/1/2023.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 427, s 2, eff. 7/1/2013.

Acts 1947, ch. 29, § 3; 1949, ch. 226, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 6901.3 (Williams, § 6901.27); Acts 1951, ch. 139, § 2; 1953, ch. 244, § 2; 1955, ch. 115, § 4; 1957, ch. 146, § 3; 1959, ch. 202, § 1; 1963, ch. 176, § 2; 1965, ch. 183, § 1; 1967, ch. 208, § 2; 1969, ch. 32, § 1; 1970, ch. 397, § 2; 1971, ch. 132, § 1; 1972, ch. 556, § 1; 1973, ch. 130, § 3; 1974, ch. 460, §§ 2, 3; 1975, ch. 190, §§ 2-4; 1981, ch. 249, § 2; 1982, ch. 820, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 50-1322; Acts 1983, ch. 368, §§ 4-6; 1983, ch. 439, §§ 1, 2; 1984, ch. 992, § 1; 1985, ch. 318, §§ 17-19; 1985, ch. 363, §§ 1-3; 1986, ch. 645, § 1; 1987, ch. 221, § 1; 1987, ch. 345, § 1; 1988, ch. 842, § 1; 1989, ch. 388, §§ 1-4; 1993, ch. 194, §§ 9-11; 1993, ch. 305, § 1; 1996, ch. 804, § 1; 1996, ch. 877, § 1; 1997 , ch. 95, § 1; 1997 , ch. 142, § 1; 2001, ch. 441, § 1; 2009 , ch. 550, § 5; 2010 , ch. 1017, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Millen v. Tennessee Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., 205 S.W.3d 929 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
Millen v. Tennessee Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., 205 S.W.3d 929 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “The issue is whether claimant is monetarily eligible for benefits under T.C.A. § 50-7-301. The base period for claimant is July 1, 2003 until June 30, 2004.”
Tom Agnew v. Meritan (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “E2010-00527-COA-R3-CV - FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2010 In this matter, the plaintiff appeals the decision of the Board of Review of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Tenn.…”
Edward Ronny Arnold v. Burns Phillips, Comm'r Tennessee Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301 (d)(1)(A) (limiting benefits to “[t]wenty-six (26) times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount”).”
Werner Reichenberger v. Deniece Thomas, Comm'r (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “(6) The claimant has satisfied the wages requirements of § 50-7-301(b); (7) The claimant has satisfied the requirements of § 50-7-301(d) [regarding maximum benefits]; and (8) The claimant participates in reemployment services, such as job search assistance services, if the…”
Becky Elliott v. James G. Neeley (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “As the plaintiff is obviously aware – given the number of times the statute is cited and relied upon in her briefs to the court – the process for determining whether an employee is eligible for benefits is clearly set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301 , et seq. The “nebulous”…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301(a)(b)(2005) — 1 case
Millen v. Tennessee Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., 205 S.W.3d 929 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The issue is whether claimant is monetarily eligible for benefits under T.C.A. § 50-7-301. The base period for claimant is July 1, 2003 until June 30, 2004.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301(b) — 1 case
Werner Reichenberger v. Deniece Thomas, Comm'r (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “(6) The claimant has satisfied the wages requirements of § 50-7-301(b); (7) The claimant has satisfied the requirements of § 50-7-301(d) [regarding maximum benefits]; and (8) The claimant participates in reemployment services, such as job search assistance services, if the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301(d) — 1 case
Werner Reichenberger v. Deniece Thomas, Comm'r (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “(6) The claimant has satisfied the wages requirements of § 50-7-301(b); (7) The claimant has satisfied the requirements of § 50-7-301(d) [regarding maximum benefits]; and (8) The claimant participates in reemployment services, such as job search assistance services, if the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.