In Boomer V

In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement, where a cement plant polluted nearby homes, the court's decision contrasted with the decision in Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer's creek so he sued to stop the pollution because:

A) in Whalen there was no comparison of costs and benefits while in Boomer the court compared the economic costs and benefits of an injunction
B) in Boomer there was no comparison of costs and benefits while in Whalen the court compared the economic costs and benefits of an injunction
C) in Whalen the court decided that the farmer had more economic impact than the plant and so found in favor of him, while in Boomer it found in favor of the home owners even though the cement plant had more economic impact
D) in Whalen the court decided that the farmer had less economic impact than the plant and so found in favor of the plant, while in Boomer it found in favor of the home owners even though the cement plant had more economic impact
E) there was no contrast in the court's decision in the two cases because it found for the defendants in both cases due to economic cost-benefit analysis