Case 1
Pram (p) v. Martini (d), Minnesota (1982)

Facts of the case: According to the complaint, the plaintiff is the owner of a residence which was constructed during the years 1978-1979. The complaint alleges that the residence has a solar system which includes collectors on the roof to supply energy for heat and hot water and that after the plaintiff built his solar-heated house, the defendant purchased the lot adjacent to and immediately to the south of the plaintiff's lot and commenced planning construction of a home. The complaint further states that when the plaintiff learned of defendant's plans to build the house he advised the defendant that if the house were built at the proposed location, defendant's house would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of plaintiff's solar system and could cause plaintiff other damage. Nevertheless, the defendant began construction.

The record ... reveals the following additional facts: Plaintiff's home was the first residence built in the subdivision, and although plaintiff did not build his house in the center of the lot it was built in accordance with applicable restrictions. Plaintiff advised defendant that if the defendant's home were built at the proposed site it would cause a shadowing effect on the solar collectors which would reduce the efficiency of the system and possibly damage the system. To avoid these adverse effects, plaintiff requested defendant to locate his home an additional several feet away from the plaintiff's lot line.... Plaintiff and defendant failed to reach an agreement on the location of defendant's home before defendant started construction. The Architectural Control Committee of the subdivision and the Planning Commission of the City of Muskego approved the defendant's plans for his home, including its location on the lot. After such approval, the defendant apparently changed the grade of the property without prior notice to the Architectural Control Committee. The problem with defendant's proposed construction, as far as the plaintiff's interests are concerned, arises from a combination of the grade and the distance of defendant's home from the defendant's lot line.

Remedy requested by plaintiff: The plaintiff demands a temporary injunction to restrain and enjoin construction by the defendant pending adjustment of grade and distance of defendant's home from the defendant's lot line sufficient to preserve plaintiff's entitlement to "unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power."

Case 2
MGM et al. (p) v. FastTrack et al. (d), U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Facts of the case: Two companies that distributed free software, which allowed computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks (that is, directly with each other, rather than through central servers), were sued by a group of copyright holders--who alleged that the distributors had knowingly and intentionally distributed their software which enabled users to infringe copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act. Although the distributors' software could be used to share any type of digital file, users of the software had mostly used it for unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music and video files.
    Discovery revealed that (1) billions of files were shared across peer-to-peer networks each month; (2) each distributor had shown itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement; (3) the distributors are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files, although the decentralized networks do not reveal which files are copied, and when; (4) the copyright holders had shown that neither distributor had attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using the software; and (5) the distributors generated income by selling advertising space, and then streaming the advertising to the users (so that, as the number of users increased, the value of the distributors' advertising opportunities increased). 

The copyright holders' expert testified that, of the current files available through the software, 75 percent were infringing and 15 percent were "likely infringing," which left some number of files near 10 percent that apparently were noninfringing. Evidence was presented concerning the the possibility of additional noninfringing future uses, but with differing interpretations of the evidence:

"The record reveals a significant future market for noninfringing uses of the type of peer-to-peer software in question, for, as uncopyrighted information stored in swappable form increases, it seems a likely inference that lawful peer-to-peer sharing will become increasingly prevalent." "fairly appraised, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate, beyond genuine debate, a reasonable prospect that substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses for the software are likely to develop."

Remedy requested by plaintiff: The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction.