Sakansky (plaintiff) owned a parcel of land accessed by an easement across property owned by Wein (defendant). The easement was established by deed over a specifically defined location. Wein wanted to construct a building over the location of the easement and offered to leave a gap between buildings allowing eight feet of headroom for vehicle passage. Wein also offered to construct new access to Sakansky’s property that detoured around the proposed new buildings. Sakansky petitioned for an injunction to prohibit the construction of the new building across the easement way. Over Sakansky’s objection, the trial court heard evidence about the proposed new easement way. The trial court concluded that the eight-foot height restriction for the new easement way would not unreasonably obstruct Sakansky’s easement rights if Wein also created a new access route without height restrictions. The trial court also concluded that the eight-foot height limit would be an unreasonable obstruction if the court were not allowed to consider a proposed alternative route as evidence. Sakansky petitioned the supreme court for review of the admissibility of evidence related to the proposed new easement and for a determination of Sakansky’s entitlement to an injunction.