If you are the Judge... who would you favor?...

If I were the judge, I'd keep the trees instead of cutting them only for the sake of the solar panels. Well, yes, the solar panel is also useful, but they can be just moved to another place unlike the trees who can;t be cut and placed to another location. And in the first place, the trees came in there first, so they really deserve that space, and they also are helpful to the environment. They even were helpful to us even before the solar panel came into the world. They can't be just cut off to give space to the solar panel. The owner of the solar panel should've thought of the possible consequences of choosing that location. Therefore, he should just move the solar panel to a better location where it can't disturb anything or anyone else. He can't win in this case again't the trees!

If I were the judge in this case, I would compromise. Since the trees are an asset to the environment, as well as solar panel heating, I would order the trees to just be cut back to a height where they would not interfere with the sunlight's access to the solar panels. I think then, both parties would be happy, as the solar panel owner would still get full sunlight, and the tree owner would still have his trees. Brightest Blessings.

First off, I would have a forester go out and take a look at the trees. Secondly I would try to decide if the trees could simply be trimmed back and not cut down, and still achieve the same effect. But, the guy who put in the solar panels should have done his homework before making that investment, like if he was going to be able to get enough sunlight to the panels.

Solar panels are wonderful, but in my view they are never a good enough reason to cut down somebody else's trees! Recently someone went out in the dark of night and cut down over 500 trees because he wanted a nicer view of the Las Vegas strip That is a heinous crime in my opinion. The judge and jury apparently agreed since he was sentenced to 5 years in jail: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-treeman15jan15,0,384315.story?coll=la-home-center A woman who hired a company to cut down 3 trees to improve her view of Lake Tahoe could get up to 10 years in prison. She ruined fewer trees, but they were on government property.

As stupid as it might sound or look, I would judge that the trees be kept at a height that doesn't interfere with the solar panels. Really, the trees should be left alone since they were there first. The owner of the panels knew they were there and was somewhat foolish to install the panels in that location. Generally speaking, I would say "tough". But seeing as to how he does have a right to solar energy, the fairest compromise would be to trim the trees that affect his sunlight and leave the other trees alone. That solar law needs serious revamping. Like anything else, a review needs to be done BEFORE construction and the necessary ironing out should take place before hand between all parties involved.

Well that depends are the neighbor's trees on his property? If the neighbor has his own trees on his own property than I don't see how the guy with the solar panel can order them cut down. He should have better planned that out when he decided to put the solar panel where he did. There also might be a solution. Maybe the trees could be trimmed back a little to at least give him a little morelight. Another solution is moving the solar panel to another location. One more thing, what was there first, the trees or the panel? If the panel was there first than he might have a case against the trees.

I would trim the trees. I think it only blocks 10% of the solar pannels that is not much. I am in favor of both.

In my opinion trees should never be compromised because they are living things too.